Case ID: sw_216/html/0420-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SPENCER,. Special Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BRADY et al. v. COBBS & BONNER.
    (No. 6173.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
    Dec. 6, 1919.)
    Costs <&wkey;2'64 — Denial oe motion to retax COSTS IN APPELLATE COURT.
    Where a cause is reversed and remanded, a motion by appellees filed at a subsequent term of Court of Civil Appeals to retax the'costs so as to include an item representing stenographic fees -incurred in preparing a statement of facts will be overruled, where it appears from the motion that such item of costs was not taxed in the district court and was not. included in the bill of costs in the transcript, mandate having issued and been filed below prior to the making of the motion, although the error in omitting the item was not discovered until after the adjournment of the appellate court.
    On motion to retax costs.
    Motion overruled.
    For opinion in the case, see 211 S. W. 802.
   SPENCER,. Special Judge.

The appellants, Thos. F. Brady, A. Deutsch, and L. C. Edwards, prevailed in their appeal in this cause to the extent that the cause was reversed and remanded at the former term of this court. 211 S. W. 802.- On'October 18,1919, appellees' filed a motion in this court to retax the costs so as to include an item of $128.70, representing stenographic fees incurred in preparing a statement of facts, alleging that the error in omitting the item was not discovered until after the adjournment of this court. The motion also alleges that the mandate, in the case was issued on the 14th day of May, 1919, and filed in the district clerk’s office of Bexar county, Tex., on the 26th day of May, 1919. It appears from the motion that this item of costs was not taxed in the district court and' was not included in the bill of costs in the transcript filed in this court.

This motion comes too late. It was appel-lees’ duty to see that the bill of costs was correct in the first instance, and this court will not now consider re-taxing the costs, but will follow the rule of practice prevailing in such cases and overrule the motion. Zarate et al. v. Villareal et al., 159 S. W. 873; H. & T. C. R. R. Co. v. Montgomery, 189 S. W. 350.

Motion overruled.