Case Name: Wm. Williams v. B. C. Jones
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1835-01
Citations: 2 Hill 555
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wm. Williams v. B. C. Jones.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 555–556

Head Matter:
Wm. Williams v. B. C. Jones.
Lancaster, Fall Term, 1834.
Notice of tax. when nLesSyl ^he th/taxatSm6 or onieVof'cvut1 at any time he-! f^ai-e record! edjafterthathfe £nWeoHier°3’ of the taxation.
Although, in general, notice of taxation of costs is not necessary, yet, if the losing party give previous notice of a wish to be present, and an intention to contest the taxation, notice should be given him; and if the party, after this, proceed to tax the costs, without having given the required notice, he might be liable to an attachment. The fact of the losing party being present and contesting the original taxation, is equivalent to notice of his wish to be present at any subsequent re-tax. ation; and, therefore, where the defendant was present and contested the original taxation, and the clerk afterwards, at the instance of the plaintiff, and without notice to the defend ant, re-taxed the costs and made additional charges, the re. taxation was set aside. Before the proceedings are recorded, aPphcation fox revising the taxation should be made to the clerk. In taxing costs he exercises judicial power, and an appeal lies from his judgement to the Circuit Court; but the Court does not possess original jurisdiction over the subject: an<^’ *D su°k cases> the clerk may, on the application of either party, and without an order from the Court, open the taxation and add other items, or strike off those previously allowed, But the power oí the clerk to alter or amend the taxation, is ended when the proceedings are recorded, and after that, an order of the Court must be obtained as an authority to alter or amend the taxation.
Money paid to wn^and b?nan inglack a comí S'“lon t0 .?nd state, not allow-costs.be taxei “s
Costs, at law, are not matter of right, but given by legislative enactment, and cannot be allowed except by warrant of law: and, according to this rule, it is questionable whether the ordinary costs of the execution of a commission, (as in Nolly v. Kirkley, 1 Hill, 398) should be allowed; but it cannot be extended further; and, therefore, money paid to an agent, for taking and bringing back a commission executed in another State, cannot be taxed as costs.

Opinion:
Curia, per Johnson, J.
affirming the decision of Mr. Justice Earle.