Case Name: Charles M. Wilson and Another v. Eunice T. Wilson
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1859-01-13
Citations: 6 Mich. 272
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles M. Wilson and Another v. Eunice T. Wilson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 272–272

Head Matter:
Charles M. Wilson and Another v. Eunice T. Wilson.
In preparing the case for the argument in this Court, on appeal from chancery, the counsel must exercise his own judgment and discretion as to whether he will print the whole evidence, or ftmit the formal, and what he may deem the unimportant, portions. And the Court on taxation of costs will not interfere with . the exercise of this discretion,- unless it clearly appears to have been abused.
Heard and Decided January 13th.
Case reported ante, p. 9.
G. I. Walker, for complainants,
moved for a re-taxation of costs. Among other objections to the bill as taxed, he claimed that the counsel had unnecessarily included, in the printed case prepared for the -argument in this Court, the formal and immaterial portions of the testimony; and he raised the question whether allowance should be made in the taxation of costs for the printing of matter that might properly have been omitted.
J. M. Howard, for defendant.

Opinion:
The Chibe Justice:
We think the counsel must exercise his own judgment and discretion in preparing the case for the printer, and we will not interfere unless it clearly appears that that discretion has been abused. In many cases — perhaps in the majority — the whole testimony ought to be printed.