Case Name: THE ROSE REICHERT. THE JOHN F. LEWIS
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1922-01-11
Citations: 279 F. 268
Docket Number: No. 83
Parties: THE ROSE REICHERT. THE JOHN F. LEWIS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 279
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
THE ROSE REICHERT. THE JOHN F. LEWIS.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
January 11, 1922.)
No. 83.
Admiralty <gs=»l26 — Costs of printing briefs not taxable under revised rules.
The cost of printing the briefs, which previously was allowed only in admiralty cases, by the rules of the Second Circuit can no longer be taxed in such cases, since the rules of the Circuit Court of Appeals were revised to conform the practice in admiralty in that respect to the practice in other cases.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Libel by the Central Union Stockyards Company against the steam tug Rose Reichert, of which the Reichert Towing Line was claimant, and the steam tug John F. Lewis, of which the A. S. Hughes & Sons Towing & Transportation Company was claimant. From a decree for the libelant, the Reichert Towing Line appeals. On motion to tax the cost of printing the briefs.
Motion denied.
See, also, 278 Fed. 311; Id. 312.
Foley & Martin, of New York City (William J. Martin and George V. A. McCloskey, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Park & Mattison, of New York City (Samuel Park, of New York City, of counsel), for the John F. Lewis.
¿§E5>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Harrington, Bigham & Englar, of New York City (L. J. Matteson and C. W. Hagen, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before ROGERS, MANTON, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The motion to tax the cost of printing the briefs is denied. Such costs have never been taxed in this court, except 'in admiralty cases, which was allowed under our rules in admiralty. When the rules of this court were revised in 1918, this rule was changed to conform to the practice in other cases.