Court Opinion

ID: 9830983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:40:44.90293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:28.984600
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing and to Retax Costs.
Appellee has filed a motion for -rehearing for the purpose of retaxing the costs of this and the former appeal.
It is contended that the item of stenographer’s fees incurred in the former appeal was improperly taxed against appellee, notwithstanding the reversal on that appeal. It is probably true that a motion to retax the costs of appeal in that ease comes too late at this time, but, be that as it may, the fee of the stenographer for making the transcript of the evidence taken upon the trial in the lower court, is a part of the costs of appeal; to be paid by the party losing on such appeal. They were properly so taxed in the former appeal in this cause. Article 1924, Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914; Pullman Co. v. Hays (Tex. Com. App.) 271 S. W. 1108.
As stated in the original opinion on this appeal, the trial court upon the second trial decreed in the judgment that appellee recover of appellant all costs incurred in the former appeal, and we held, as shown in the opinion herein, that the trial court was without authority to -render such decree, and erred in doing so. We held also that, although the judgment below would not be otherwise disturbed, the costs of the present appeal must be taxed against appellee, since appellant made timely objection to that decree in the trial court, and assigned and prosecuted error thereon. Appellee now moves that the costs as thus disposed of be *496retaxed, and assessed against appellant. We overrule this motion. The decree of the trial court in the matter in question was erroneous. According to the opinion rendered on the main case it was the only error committed upon the trial, and was so material as to require reversal and rendition as to that decree. The error occurred through no fault of appellant, who had consistently protested against it throughout the proceedings in both courts.
We appreciate the point made by appellee that this disposition of the costs largely offsets the amount recovered by him in the judgment appealed from and here affirmed in his behalf, and that a hardship is thus worked upon him. But it would not only be against all precedent, but would be inequitable as well, to tax appellant with the costs of an error for which it was in no wise responsible, and against which it has consistently protested in both courts.
Appellee’s motion must be overruled.