Case ID: cow_5/html/0445-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jackson, ex dem. Cox, against Haight.
    The supreme court have not jurisdiction to order a re-taxation of^eosts taxed by tho chiof justice as judge of the court of erron.
    The plaintiff had, by writ of error, removed this cause from the supreme court, into the court for the trial of impeachments and the correction of errors, where the judgment xvas affirmed; and the defendant’s costs were taxed by Savage, Ch. Justice.
    A motion xvas noxv made to this court for a relaxation, on affidavits entitled “ In the court for the trial of impeachments and the correction of errors.”
    
      King and Randall for the motion.
    
      A. Burr, contra.
   Curia.

The affidavit is entitled, and we think properly, m the court of errors. The taxation xvas upon a judgment of that court axvarding costs, to be taxed ; and xvas before the Chief Justice, as a judge and taxing officer of that court, pursuant to their 17th general rule. (16 John. 606.) By that rule, the costs, xvhen taxed, form a part of the remittitur ; and if too high, should be reviewed there on a motion to retax and correct the remittitur. Though xve are, by the rule cited, to collect these costs, we have no farther control over them. To grant this motion, xvould be to tax the costs of another court. It would he to correct COurt of errors have done on review of a judg.

ment rendered hy this court.

Motion denied.