Court Opinion

ID: 9624120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:51:32.083588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:41.512474
License: Public Domain

On Motion to Tax Costs
MR. JUSTICE DAVIS:
On motion to tax costs. The appellants have moved to assess the costs on this appeal under R. C. M. 1947, section 93-8606, subd. 1, against the plaintiff and respondent; this, because our opinion and judgment heretofore rendered makes no formal award of costs. The statute invoked by this motion has been a part of our Code of Civil Procedure in its present form at least since 1895. See Code Civ. Proc. 1895, section 1855.
When upon the reversal here of a district court a new trial is  ordered the taxation of the costs of the appeal is left by this section to the discretion of this Court. Consistent with that statute this discretion has been exercised by Rule XVIII, which awards costs in all such cases “to the successful party against the other party”, unless it is “otherwise provided by the Court in its decision”. In our decision in the instant ease there is no provision otherwise.
Under subdivision 1 then of section 93-8606 the costs of this  appeal were automatically awarded by this rule when our decision was rendered; i. e., to the appellants who were the successful parties, to be recovered by them of the respondent. This has been the uniform practice over the years in this court pursuant both to Rule XVIII and as well to our earlier Rule XVII from which Rule XVIII derives. See First State Bank of Thompson Falls v. Larsen, 72 Mont. 400, 406, 233 Pac. 960; State ex rel. Hurley v. District Court, 27 Mont. 40, 42, 69 Pac. 244.
It follows that since the costs of this appeal have already been *243taxed as we have indicated, tbe motion of the appellants here is without purpose. It is accordingly denied.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ADAIR and MR. JUSTICES ANGSTMAN, ANDERSON and BOTTOMLY, concur.