Case Name: BASIM v. WADE
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1906-02-27
Citations: 47 Or. 524
Docket Number: 
Parties: BASIM v. WADE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 524–526

Head Matter:
Decided 27 February, 1906.
BASIM v. WADE.
84 Pac. 387.
Costs —Time eor Filing Cost Bill — Time to Object.
Under Section 568, B. & C. Comp., as amended by Laws 1903, pp. 209, 210, a ■party entitled to costs and disbursements lias until and including the first day •of the next regular term following the rendition of the judgment withir* which to file his statement, and the opposite party has five days from the date of such filing to file objections thereto, and not five days after the first day of the next regular term.
From AVallowa : Robert EakiN, Judge.
Statement by Mr. Justice Hailey.
The plaintiff, Judson Basim, brought an action against Aaron Wade, and at the trial, upon his own motion, had r nonsuit entered without prejudice, with judgment for costs and disbursements against him. After the expiration of five days from the rendition of the judgment defendant served and filed his statement of costs and disbursements, and, no objections thereto having been filed by plaintiff within five days from the filing thereof, such costs and disbursements were entered as of course by the-clerlc as a part of the judgment, and an execution issued thereon. Thereupon, without filing any objections to said statement, the plaintiff filed a motion to recall the execution, claiming that the judgment for costs and disbursements had been prematurely entered for the reason that, the statement thereof having been filed after the expiration of five days from the rendition of judgment, the plaintiff had until five days after the first day of the next term of court in which to file his objections thereto. An order overruling this motion was entered, from which this appeal is taken. The case was submitted on briefs under-the proviso of Rule 16: 35 Or. 587, 600.
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief over the name of Mr.. Francis Swift Ivanhoe.
For respondent there was a brief over the name of Mr.. John Simeon Hodgin.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Hailey
delivered the opinion of the court.
The question before us is when, under Section 568, B. &. C. Comp., as amended in 1903 (Laws 1903, p. 209), must, a judgment debtor file his objections to the statement of costs and disbursements of a judgment creditor, filed after-the expiration of five days after the rendition of judgment. Must he do so within five days after the statement is filed, or can he do so at any time before the expiration of five days after the first day of the next regular term of court occurring after the filing of such statement? The law as-amended reads:
"The statement of disbursements thus filed, and costs, shall be entered as of course by the clerk as a part of the judgment or decree in favor of the party entitled to costs and disbursements, unless the adverse party within five days from the expiration of the time allowed to file such statement shall file his objections thereto."
The old law read :
"The statement of disbursements thus filed, and costs, shall be allowed of course, unless the adverse party, within two days from the time allowed to file the same, shall file his objections thereto."
Under the old law this court held in effect, in Hislop v. Moldenhauer, 24 Or. 106 (32 Pac. 1026), that objections to a cost bill must be filed within two days after the filing of the cost bill, and yet under that law the filing of the cost bill was not limited to the first day of the next regular term of court occurring after the rendition of the judgment, as in the amended law. We think, therefore, the effect of the amendment, as applied to the case at bar, is to limit the time within which a cost bill can be filed to the first day of the next regular term of court occurring after the rendition of judgment, and to extend the time within which objections thereto can be filed from the old limit of two days to a new limit of five days after filing the cost bill, and not until five days after the expiration of the first day of the next term of court occurring after filing the cost bill, as claimed by plaintiff. The order of the lower court is therefore affirmed. Affirmed.