Opinion ID: 1709084
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Taxing the Costs

Text: Many decisions of this court state the law here applicable. In Lucas v. Lucas, 258 Ala. 515, 64 So.2d 70, we said: The taxation of costs in equity proceedings is governed by Equity Rule 112, Code 1940, Title 7, Appendix, which, in pertinent part, is as follows: `Costs will be imposed by the court or judge having jurisdiction at such times during the litigation as he deems proper, subject to correction for improper exercise of his discretion, and may be apportioned by him between the parties;   .' In referring to Equity Rule 112, supra, it was stated in Dozier v. Payne, 244 Ala. 476, 477, 14 So.2d 376, 377, as follows: `This rule needs no elaboration. It follows the long established rule in equity vesting in the chancellor a discretion in the taxation of costs; but, says the rule, subject to correction for improper exercise of his discretion. An improper exercise of discretion appears when the record, after indulging all fair intendments in favor of the ruling, discloses the taxation of costs was unjust and unfair. Otherwise the action of the trial court should not be disturbed.       See, also, the later case of Thompson v. Bryant, 251 Ala. 566, 569, 38 So.2d 590, 593, wherein it is stated as follows: `In equity the matter of costs rests largely in the discretion of the chancellor. Considering the case before us in the light of the foregoing pronouncements, we are unwilling to say that there was an improper exercise of discretion by the trial court in the taxation of costs. Boyes' Petitions for Certiorari Boyes filed, in connection with each of these appeals, a petition for certiorari to correct the record by adding thereto a statement dictated into the record of the hearing in the trial court by counsel for Boyes, in which he purports to quote portions of an oral argument theretofore made in the trial court by one of the counsel for respondents. In reaching our conclusions stated above, we have considered the record as it is and have also considered the record as it would be if that statement and the argument to which it refers were added to the record. That addition, if made, would not affect this court's decision respecting the matters before it for decision. Those petitions should, therefore, be denied. The motion to substitute as parties in place of the Director of the Department and the Mayor and President of the Board of Commissioners of the City, the respective successors in office of said parties, has been granted. The decrees appealed from are affirmed. Affirmed. LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and MERRILL, JJ., concur.