Case Name: Brown v. Brown
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1849-09
Citations: 1 Unrep. Tenn. Cas. 41
Docket Number: 
Parties: Brown v. Brown
Judges: 
Reporter: Unreported Tennessee Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 41–42

Head Matter:
Brown v. Brown
CHANCERY PRACTICE — Aeeount.
1. The rule allowing an accounting party to prove by Ms own oath to the amount of $500, in items not to exceed $20 each, does not apply to a complainant seeking an account.
2. Samis. — Taxation of Costs. — -It is an abuse for a Clerk and Master to incorporate the depositions into an account and charge full fees for copying the same; but he may append extracts from the proof to justify and illustrate his account.
8. Same. — Gross mistake of Clerk,Master forfeits his Costs. — "Where a Clerk and Master so totally misconceives an order of reference as that a second account is required, semble, that he is not entitled to costs in the first instance.
Id this case the clerk and master had allowed the complainant to prove various items of charge by his own oath. The Supreme Court on exceptions, G-reen, J., delivering the opinion, stated the rule as follows i
A complainant seeking an account cannot charge the /respondent under'the rule allowing the accounting party to prove by his own oath to the amount of five hundred dollars in items no,t exceeding twenty dollars. It is true a complainant may, under some circumstances, be an accounting party within the meaning of the rule; for instance, when an account is ordered against him, he may under the rule discharge himself ; but when he files the bill and seeks to charge the opposite party, the rule does not apply. Its application is only allowed in favor of the party sought to be charged.
Upon the decree in this case being presented, a motion was made to revise in several items the taxation of costs which had been sent up, by the clerk and master of the Court below. Among other things, Maynard stated that the .depositions upon which, the accounts of the clerk and master were founded, were copied at large into the accounts, and charged for at the rate .per copy sheet allowed for accounts ; and this, he said, was the practice of many clerks.-
Haddock’s Ch. Pr., vol. 2, p. 517. Goodner v. Browning, 9 Humph. 784.

Opinion:
GrREBN, J.,
said that it was proper and allowable for a clerk and master to append to his report extracts from the proof to justify and illustrate his account, and that he approved of their so doing ; but to copy depositions at large or to take them and incorporate them into an account, and to charge as for an account, was an abuse.
Nelsoit made the question whether the Court would allow for several accounts in the same case. GrREBN, J., said he thought the proper practice would be to disallow the clerk's costs in cases where he totally misconceived an order of reference, and so took an account as to require it to be set aside in toto ; but where it was merely modified upon - exceptions, the costs would be allowed.