Case ID: us_114/html/0262-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Me. Chief Justice Waite", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BRADSTREET COMPANY v. HIGGINS.
    IN ERROR TO THE CIEOUIT COUET OE THE UNITED STATES EOE THE. WESTERN DISTRICT OE MISSOUBI.
    Argued March 2, 1885.
    Decided April 13, 1885.
    A defendant in error, on whose motion a writ of error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, may recover costs in this court which are incidént to his motion to dismiss.
    
      This case having been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the defendant in error made' the following application to the court.
    “ The plaintiff in'error failing to print the record, the requisite amount was advanced by the defendant in' error, with the' understanding that in case of his success this would be refunded.
    “The Clerk now informs the defendant in error, that the amount advanced by him cannot be taxed in his favor, nor any of his other costs in this court, because the cause was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. As the taxation of costs in such cases is a matter of daily occurrence, and' frequently of much importance, we take this occasion of bringing the subject to the attention of the court. ....
    ■ “ Ye ask that the Clerk may be directed to tax the costs of printing the record and for supervising the same, against the 'plaintiff in error — the Bradstreet Co.”
    
      Mr. W. Hallett Phillips for the motion,
    submitted on his brief.
    
      Mr. H. Wise Garnett opposing.-
   Me. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This writ of error was dismissed at a former day in .this term, on motion of the defendant in error, for want of jurisdiction, because the value of the matter in dispute did not exceed $5,000. 112 IT. S. 227. In order to present his motion to dismiss, it became necessary for the, defendant in error to cause, the record to be printed, and to do that he was' compelled to pay the cost'.of printing and the fee of the qlerk for supervising. The judgment, as entered on the motion to dismiss, made no order as to costs, and the defendant in error now moves that the cost of printing and the clerk’s -fee for supervising be taxed against the plaintiff in error. •

It has been often decided that if a suit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court no judgment for the costs of the suit can be given. Inglee v. Coolidge, 2 Wheat. 363; McIver v. Wattles, 9 Wheat: 650 ; Strader v. Graham, 18 How. 602; Hornthall v. Collector, 9 Wall. 560. A different rule prevails when there has been á reversal here because the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction, as this court has authority to correct the error of the Circuit Court in taking jurisdiction. Turner v. Enrille, 4 Dall. 7; Winchester v. Jackson, 3 Cranch, 514; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch, 46; Mansfield & Lake Michigan Railway Co v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 387.

Here, however, the question'is not as to the right of the defendant in error to recover his costs in the suit, but only such as are incident to his motion t.o, dismiss. It has been decided that the writ of error was wrongfully sued out by the. plaintiff in error. To get' rid of the writ and the supersedeas which had been detained -thereunder, the defendant in error was compelled to come to this court and move to dismiss. That motion we had jurisdiction to hear and decide. The'right to decide implies the right to adjudge as to all costs which are incident to the motion.

Under Rulé 10, § 2, of this court, it was the duty of the plaintiff in error to caúse the récord to be printed, and to pay all the costs and fees incident thereto in time for use when required in the progress of the cause. If it failed in this the defendant in error might pay the costs and fees'and thus secure thp printing. Under § '7, in case''Of reversal, affirmance, or dismissal with costs, the amount of the cost of printing the record and the clerk’s fee are to be taxed to the party against Whom the costs are given.-

. In this ease the plaintiff in error neglected to have the record printed by the time it was wanted bythe defendant in error on his motion 4o dismiss. Under the^e circumstances we do •Mot doubt our authority to adjudge the costs incident to the - printing against the plaintiff in error as part of the costs of the motion to dismiss. .It is accordingly

Ordered that the judgment heretofore entered he amended so as to charge the plaintiff in error with all the ■ costs of the motion to dismiss, which shall include the co,st of printing the recbrd cmd the clerk’s fee for supervising. ’