Case Name: James Closen and another vs. W. W. Allen
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1882-03-28
Citations: 29 Minn. 86
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Closen and another vs. W. W. Allen.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 86–87

Head Matter:
James Closen and another vs. W. W. Allen.
March 28, 1882.
Appeal — Order Affirming Taxation of Costs. — On appeal, upon questions of law, the judgment of a justice of the peace In favor of the plaintiffs was affirmed in the district court, with costs and disbursements. Among other items, the clerk taxed in favor of the plaintiffs “ costs, by statute, $10.” Defendant objected, and appealed to the district court, by which the taxation was affirmed. Held, that no appeal lies from the order of affirmation to this court.
Costs on Appeal from Justice of the Peace. — Attention called to Watson v. Ward, 27 Minn. 29, where a similar taxation was upheld.
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Clay county, Stearns, J., presiding, affirming the clerk’s taxation of costs.
Briggs <& Elders, for appellant.
Burnham é Gould, for respondent.

Opinion:
Berry, J.
Plaintiffs having recovered, in justice's court, a judgment against defendant for $11.62, the latter appealed to the proper district court, upon questions of law alone. The district court, upon trial, gave judgment, on November 28, 1879, for plaintiffs, for the amount of the justice's judgment, with costs and disbursements. On December 17, 1879, the clerk, on due notice, taxed, among other items, "costs by statute, $10." Defendant objected and appealed. The appeal was heard April 6, 1880, and on dune 7, 1880, an order made by the court affirming the taxation. September 29, 1S80, plaintiffs served on defendant notice of the affirming order/and on October 28, 1880, defendant appealed from the order to this court.
Plaintiffs insist that the order is not appealable, and in this they are supported by Minnesota Valley R. Co. v. Flynn, 14 Minn. 552. In this case, as in that, the taxation and its affirmation were in accordance with the judgment, and the objection is one which goes to the judgment, and not to the taxation. This appeal must accordingly be dismissed. We call attention, however, to the fact that the question as to the propriety of taxing the item objected to is decided in favor of the taxation made and affirmed in this case, in Watson v. Ward, 27 Minn. 29.
Appeal dismissed.