Court Opinion

ID: 6546935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:20:20.191359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:58.752550
License: Public Domain

On Motion to Retax Costs. Hill, C. J. I. Appellants ask that the costs be retaxed and the decree modified, in so far as the claim of Mrs. Minnie C. Martin is concerned. The giving of costs in equity is within the discretion of the chancellor, to be. exercised upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case and the situation of the parties, and appellate courts are slow to disturb his award of the costs when he has exercised that discretion. Williams v. Buchanan, ante p. 259; Temple v. Lawson, 19 Ark. 248; State v. Fort, 18 Ark. 202; Jones v. Graham, 36 Ark. 383. The chancellor adjudged that all of the costs of the suit, including the fees of the master, be paid from cash in the bank belonging to the defendant corporation. There is nothing in the circumstances of this case which would call for a reversal of this award of the costs. The opinion heretofore delivered announced that this decree was affirmed, but the clerk made a mistake in writing up the judgment of affirmance, making it a recovery from the appellants of all the costs in the chancery court as well as in this court, and this mistake was not detected by the court when the record was approved. Attention has been called to it by this motion, and the order will be that the judgment be corrected so as to affirm the decision of the chancellor in this respect, and the judgment for costs against the appellants be for the costs of this court only, the costs of the chancery court to be paid as provided in the order of that court, which was not intended to be disturbed. II. Appellants point put that the statute of limitations was pleaded against the claim of Mrs. Martin, and show that in the final decree of the chancellor, after some other motions had been disposed of, the coal company "interposed the plea of the statute of limitations against plaintiff’s claim for salary, and the court doth find that said claim is not barred by limitation.” When this question was raised on rehearing, the pleadings were searched in order to find wherein the statute of limitations was pleaded, and the court orders were searched in order to find if the court had accepted an oral plea, as contended by counsel; and, none ■being found at these places, where it should have been, the statement was made in the opinion overruling the motion for rehearing that the record did not contain such plea. But this was a mistake, as it is found in the final decree; and attention was called to it in the original brief. It is doubtful whether it is proper for the court to consider the plea of limitations raised orally when the final decree was being rendered as properly raising that issue, even though the chancellor ruled upon it; but as the facts require an overruling of the plea upon the merits, it is' not necessary to go into this question of practice. The record shows that it was the joint account of Mr. and Mrs. Martin that was sued on. It contained items of debit and credit between them and the coal company running over a number of years, and contained items of debit and credit as late as December, 1904 (this suit was brought in 1905). Some of these credits were for salary of Mr. Martin and some for salary of Mrs. Martin. It is insisted 'that the last item of Mrs. Martin’s salary is August 1, 1902. The plea of limitation is to the joint account of the two, and did not in any way separate the two claims. If the claims were separated, and the plea interposed to the separate claim of Mrs. Martin, the result is the same. The record shows that the court submitted to a master the duty of stating the account of Mr. and Mrs. Martin with the coal company. The fifth item of the master’s statement is as follows: “I find in the account that Mrs. Minnie C. Martin has taken credit January 25, 1904, for $250. The defendants admit there is no contest over this item.” Exceptions were filed to this account on other matters by both parties, and, in accordance with the instructions from the chancellor, the account was recast; but there was no change upon this item, as it appears in the restated account. “January 25, 1904, by cash Mrs. Minnie C. Martin, $250.” This was evidently payment on the account. From these facts the court concludes that Mrs. Martin’s salary was not barred when this action was begun. The order is that the judgment be corrected so as to conform to the opinion; and in other respects the motion for retaxation of costs and modification of the decree is overruled.