Case Name: Belding vs. Burlingham
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1841-05
Citations: 1 Hill & Den. 361
Docket Number: 
Parties: Belding vs. Burlingham.
Judges: 
Reporter: Hill's Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
Belding vs. Burlingham.
On a writ of error to this court from the court for the correction of errors, the prevailing party is not entitled to charge by the folio, for copies of the points furnished on the argument in the latter court, but only the expense of printing them.
On appeal from the taxation of costs the question was, whether on a writ of error to this court from the court for the correction of errors, the prevailing party was entitled to charge by the folio for copies of the points delivered to the members of the court, or whether he should only be allowed the expense of printing. The taxing officer had allowed for copies by the folio, amounting to $70.
M. T. Reynolds, for the plaintiff, insisted, that after a charge by the folio for drawing the points, and for copies to be signed by counsel and for the printer, the party was only entitled to be paid the expense of printing the copies furnished to the members of the court. He said that although the judges might have taxed copies by the folio with the consent of counsel, (see Ætna Ins. Co. v. Tyler, 18 Wend. 658, note,) yet the point had never been decided by this court. In the court of chancery it had been settled that the party could only charge the printer’s bill. (Waller v. Harris, 7 Paige, 479.)
O. Allen, for the defendant, said it was the uniform practice of the taxing officers in this court, to allow by the folio for the points furnished to the members of the court for the correction of errors.

Opinion:
By the Court, Bronson, J.
Although this question seems never to have been decided in this court, it is settled in the court of chancery that the party is only entitled to the expense of printing, for the necessary copies of the points furnished . to the court and counsel on the argument. There is no difference in principle between cases upon appeal and those on writs of error, so far as relates to this question, and the practice of the taxing officers should be the same in both courts. We have considered the matter, and- are of opinion that the chancellor has laid down the true rule. There must, therefore, be a re-taxation.
Motion granted.