Case ID: nc_58/html/0129-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Battle, J\".", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALEXANDER McRAE AND OTHERS against HAYWOOD W. GUION AND OTHERS.
    It is not an approved practice in a bill to pray that exhibits may be made a part thereof, but if a plaintiff choose to make them a part of his bill he cannot object (being ordered to pay costs) to their being copied as part of the bill served on the defendant, and his being charged with costs accordingly.
    A clerk and master has a right to charge by the copy sheet for copies of the bill, which were issued to be served on the defendant.
    A clerk and master has no right to 'charge for a seal on a Jifa issued to his county.
    Where a bill was amended so as to make a corporation a party, it was Held to be proper to serve the President of the corporation with a copy of the bill, although he was already before the Court in his individual capacity.
    The clerk is only entitled to charge for one subpoena beyond the number necessary to be issued to the defendants, (one for each defendant.)
    Where, on an appeal, the decretal order was in part reversed, the appellee was ordered to pay costs.
    This was a bulk upon the defendants to show canse why certain charges in a Jifa, issued for costs in the case, should not be' struck out, heard before Heath, J., at the last Fall Term of Bladen Court of Equity.
    On a previous decree for costs against the plaintiffs in the cause, th % fieri facias issued, which is the subject of this rule, and tlie material contents of which appear from the following exceptions filed :
    .1. Because the exhibits referred to specially in the bill of complaint, as a part thereof, should have been filed in the office of the clerk and master, and no copies of them should have been issued to tbe defendants.
    2. That copies of the bill are not chargeable by the office copy-sheet, being nothing more than a writ or process, to bring defendants into Court.
    3. That if the bills are chargeable by the copy sheet, the exhibits filed in the cause, form no part of the bill, and should not have been issued with the bill and subpoena, or be charged in the bill of costs.
    
      4. The plaintiffs further excepted to the bill of costs, for that the clerk and master charged one dollar and twenty-five cents for issuing the fi fa — twenty-five cents being for his official seal, though all the defendants in the execution, resided in the county of Eobeson.
    5. That a copy of the original bill and exhibits, had been served on ITaywood TV. Guión, one of the defendants, and af-terwards, the bill being amended by making the "Wilmington, Charlotte and Eutherford Eail Eoad Company a party defendant, the master issued another copy of the bill, as amended, with another copy of the exhibits to the same Haywood W. Guión, as president of the said company, charging the defendants in the execution, again, for bill and exhibits by the copy sheet.
    6. That the master charged for his seal upon each copy of the bill and subpoenas, to each defendant, as well those in the county, as those without. '
    It was admitted that the bill was allowed to be amended by making the corporation a party defendant, and a copy with exhibits issued to the president.
    The exceptions being overruled by the Court, the plaintiffs appealed.
    
      W. McL. McKay and Kelly, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Person and &'frange, for the defendants.
   Battle, J".

The first and main exception to the bill of costs, for which the execution issued, is, that the exhibits referred to in the bill, and prayed to be made a part thereof, ought to have been filed in the office of the clerk and master, and not made a part of the copy of the bill, which the law requires to be served upon the defendant, or on each defendant, if there be more than one; see Revised Code, ch. 32, sec. 3, Rule 2. It is true that exhibits are not properly any part of the bill, and ought not to be so made. They are only proofs in the cause, and ought only to be referred to, and prayed to be filed as such; 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 420. But if the plaintiff choose to make them a part of his bill, as was done in the present case, (and as we are sorry to see is to generally the practice,) we do not perceive any ground upon which he can object to paying for copies of them, whenever he may for any canse, be ordered to pay the costs. This exception is, therefore, overruled; and with it the third exception is disposed of.

The second exception is, that the clerk and master has no right to charge by the copy-sheet for copies of the bill which he issued to be served on the defendant or defendants. The counsel for the plaintiffs contend that the only fee to which the clerk and master is entitled under the 26th section of the 102 chapter of the Revised Code, is “for process one dollar,” but in this, we think he is mistaken. The copies of the bill which are sent out to be served with a writ or subpoena, have always been considered as “proceedings” for which, by the same section, the charge is twenty cents by the copy-sheet.— The fourth exception is sustained as to the charge for the seal to the writ of fi&rifacias issued to the sheriff of the county in which the clerk and master resided. The 120th section of the 31st chapter of the Revised Code expressly declares that “ where the clerk of the superior or county court issues precepts, or process to the county of which he is' clerk, he shall not annex the seal of the Court thereto, and the 32d ch. sec. 4, authorises executions to be issued from a court of Equity in the same manner, as executions at law.

The fifth exception must be overruled, because, after the amendment of the bill, the service of the copy of it on the President of the Rail Road Company was necessary for the purpose of making the corporation a party.

The sixth and last exception is overruled in part, and sustained as to the residue of it. A seal is not necessary, as we have already said, to any process -within the county, and there ought to have been but one subpoena more than the number of the defendants. All the subpoenas which are to be served on the defendants, and left with them, will be copies of the one which the officer retains, and upon which he is to make his return*

The decretal order must he reversed in the particulars mentioned above, and affirmed as to the residue. As the j ndgment has been, in part reversed, the appellee must pay the costs of this Court.

Pee Cujbiam, Decretal order reversed in part.