The Iowa transcript. (Toledo, Tama County, Iowa) 1858-1866, 1861-01-10
SUPREME COURT.
Opinion Ina the Fee Hill I ISc.
RIPLEY vs.. CLIFFORD.


RIPLEY vs.. CLIFFORD.
On the Goth day Of Oct, A. u. 1860,
the rclatur presented To the respondent,
who is the Clerk OF the Scott District
Court, his original petition and asked
that the same should be filed and the
cause treated rs pending in said Court.
This the Clerk refused 10 do without
the prepayment Of $3.50. as required
Rclator rendered to him ten cents, be
ing, as he claimed, 4 reasonable fec or
compensation for the service demanded,
and insisted that the paper should be
tiled. The Clerk still refusing, Rrlator
applied, by proper petition, for the writ
OF manlamns. Upon the hearing, the
Court below ordered the pcrcnp.ory
writ, and respondent appeals. Corbiu,
Dow l. Brown for lselator, and Geo.
4. llubbell for respondent.
WRIGHT. 1.-The determination Of
this case involves the question, whether
since the taking effect Of the revision
Of 1860, We have now any law fixing
the fees Of the Clerk of the District
Court. And whether confusion or
hardship may result from the conclusion.
we feel constrained to hold that we
have not: and rs 4 consequence, TINT
Respondent had no tight to dem NIL
the prepayment of,.c docket fee. $3.50.
rs was his right and duty under the
Code OF 81.
Chapter l3i Of Part Third Of the
Code If 1851, provided FIR the cnmpen
satiou of~oslicers, incln ling .lir Clerk oI
the Di>!ri I Court. rs section 49,
IT this chapter, the Clerk Was required
- charge 1T the commencement &c ~
original suit. $3.50: anl this viii, all
other fees had 10 he (scc.o52s) pail in
advance cr secured. Section 4ls7 Of
the Revision Of 1860, repeated al pr
tons ct' Part Third o. Mr rode If 1851.
and all parts Of all acts within the pnr-
view Of sail Revision. achich is not IL
sail Reriion contained cithry HierrNy
or By unm rieui designation. No part
Of c'.ap.cr 136 cfihe Code ofls5l, was
contained III the Revision of 1850, ~ It
passed the Legislature. Nor is there
anything in the present Revision TOW
IN force in place Of said chapter i3G.
II j. claimed that rs reported by the
Commissioners. the Revision did ron.
tain. substantially. Tho chantcr of thc
old code ssixinr the condensation of
officers" However this nay lie, Il 4
mdcniahlv true. TIA, the report VAS
amended bv striking ont or omi,,in.
this %clan,er, for i, is not i part Of tho
act as It finally passed the General
Assembly. And thus it has occurred
that the General Assembly, while
ennctin- wha, was regarded aisl in
tended as Il substitute for Part Third
of the old code, omitted entirely to
make ANY provision on the subject Of
costs AMI fees. 50 ia. as Tho same was
covered md ,ro,ilca for il ch.n;er
$50 Of s.;I part,
uh,. 49,, -. ~. - !.
a - n's n rnn. .4"a' ":s.sn' =
H." -. = w: '''.'' ~,
s,;,.,e g.. - uel ~ D., ~ fuo.i'' : s'u.
.,.,r 80 ~ :. laa;n ' ~ -.
49, W. ~ ".: "',': ."'>
&c In . o'' r''N'. =
fa !" ~ ~. =" =" 'ns smnlee'
.os.s !" omle"s'..o" =. o'1eeIs,
.o''"s' '"", "''
'n's "''''ss ~, ;. - ~, - our power %
supply: nc rue '''' .n' 'ea' htch-
t'o' o., tue LEGISLATURE W''cn ascertain
ca, VIII Pfe'a1' over tue 'tera' sense,
mas no al'lI'ea,'on: = Ie.l,'a'!se
acI u'slals'akau!y 'a.s 20 pros'ae 'or
ame compensation 'l,sc oacers.
mere : no onsc"f,'y-ho'hi''s l'tt III
oo"p,' mere : ho.ahs"ase mat We arc
ca''ea upon 20 cons''uo. y y SIMPLY
2 casus Vh'ss"s, anu Wy cannot presume
that, because Tue General Asse,nn'H
DHyht TO have provided = 'trc b'h,
that they wouIl, therefore, have re-
enacted the ola o1e any moro ia VIC
~ presume thcy would enact moth
CT and different one. 10 say that chap
ter l,6 Is s'l'l ~ iprcc, would he most
palpablc judicial legislation. The leg
eI. -l-