Case ID: miss_25/html/0172-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Work vs. Johnson Mallory; Lewis Williams et al. vs. Ingram and Read.
    A party who files a record and prosecutes an appeal or writ of error in this court, and the case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, is liable to be taxed with the cost of the suit.
    The cost of the transcript of a record, charged in the inferior court, should be taxed in this court as a part-of the cost of the suit.
    This was a motion made to tax the plaintiff in error with the cost of the suit, upon the writ of error being dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and also to require, that the clerk of this court should tax the cost of making out the transcript in the inferior court, in the bill of cost in this court.
    
      Adams and Dixon, for the motion.
    
      Work, contra.
   Per Curiam.

These cases present these questions: first, whether, when a case is dismissed in this court for want of jurisdiction, the party who filed the record and prosecuted the writ of error or appeal is liable to be taxed with the costs of the suit? We have fully considered this question, and respond in the affirmative.

The second question is, whether the costs of the transcript of the record, charged in the inferior court, should be taxed in this court as a part of the costs of the suit? When the acts of 10th February, 1844, (Hutch. Code, 486,) and the act of March 2d, 1833, (Hutch. Code, 932,) are taken in conjunction, we think that .it may be properly ruled, that the costs of such transcript should be taxed in the bill of costs in this court.