Case ID: mich_260/html/0395-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LIQUIDATING HOLDING CORP. v. MORTGAGE & CONTRACT CO.
    Costs — Premium on Appeal Bond Taxable as Costs.
    Premium on appeal bond given by defendant to stay proceedings and to pay judgment if not reversed was properly taxed as part of its costs, where judgment against it was reversed on appeal (Court Rule No. 5, § 7).
    Assumpsit by Liquidating Holding Corporation, a Michigan corporation, as assignee, against Mortgage & Contract Company, a Michigan corporation, for breach of contract relating to sale of interests in real estate. (See 258 Mich. 476.) On plaintiff’s motion for retaxation of costs.
    Submitted October 1, 1932.
    (April, 1932,
    Docket No. 126, Calendar No. 36,455.)
    Denied October 28, 1932.
    
      Shapero & Shapero (Harold M. Shapero, of counsel), for plaintiff.
    
      Goodenough, Voorhies, Long $ Ryan, for defendant.
   Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from taxation of costs and involves an item of $631.56, premium on an appeal bond, given to stay proceedings and to pay the judgment if not reversed.

The judgment was reversed and a new trial granted, and plaintiff contends that, under our holding in Caswell v. Stearns, 259 Mich. 445, the premium on the bond cannot be taxed as costs. In the Caswell Case no execution could have issued on the judgment, and the only stay was against certifying the judgment to the probate court. Such is not this case. The rule applied in Behr v. Baker, 257 Mich. 487, governs, and the taxation by the clerk is affirmed, with costs to defendant.