Case: PACIFIC BANK, LIMITED, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASANO CHUYA BANK, LIMITED, v. M. E. GOMES, JR., K. OKI, F. K. MAKINO, JAS. W. ACHUCK AND D. K. TRASK, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR; JAMES BICKNELL, AUDITOR, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, GARNISHEE
Abbreviation: Pacific Bank, Ltd. v. Gomes
Court: Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1927-06-16
Docket Number: No. 1699
Citation: 29 Haw. 853
Volume: 29
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Parties: PACIFIC BANK, LIMITED, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASANO CHUYA BANK, LIMITED, v. M. E. GOMES, JR., K. OKI, F. K. MAKINO, JAS. W. ACHUCK AND D. K. TRASK, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR; JAMES BICKNELL, AUDITOR, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, GARNISHEE.
Pages: 853–854

PACIFIC BANK, LIMITED, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASANO CHUYA BANK, LIMITED, v. M. E. GOMES, JR., K. OKI, F. K. MAKINO, JAS. W. ACHUCK AND D. K. TRASK, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR; JAMES BICKNELL, AUDITOR, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, GARNISHEE.
No. 1699.
Argued June 13, 1927.
Decided June 16, 1927.
Perry, C. J., Parsons, J., and Circuit Judge Cristy in place of Banks, J., absent.

Per Curiam.
The plaintiff in error moves for taxation of costs. The only item in its bill which is disputed is a charge of $237.00 for “transcript of evidence paid to official court reporter.” Ordinarily, and in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the expense incurred in procuring a transcript of the evidence necessary for the' consideration of an appeal is taxable as costs in favor of the prevailing party. Robinson v. Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land Co., 20 Haw. 467, 468; Tyler v. Wise, 21 Haw. 166; Magoon v. Lord-Young Co., 23 Haw. 187. The undisputed facts in this case are, however, that after the rendition of the verdict the parties ordered the transcript under an oral agreement entered into between them that each should pay one-half of the cost. Nothing was said at that time with reference to the taxation of the item as costs. The agreement to pay one-half each was unqualified. Under these circumstances the item is not noiv taxable as costs. “An expenditure for a transcript ordered by the opposing parties under an unqualified agreement entered into by them that each would pay one-half of the expense is not taxable as costs in favor of the prevailing party.” Scott v. Kona Development Co., 21 Haw. 462.
J. C. Kelley for plaintiff in error.
J. B. Lightfoot for defendants in error.
The item in question is disallowed. The costs are taxed in the total sum of $93.75.