Court Opinion

ID: 9943930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 15:19:36.311266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:52:16.744714
License: Public Domain

Both appellant and respondent appeal from the clerk's taxation of costs and disbursements allowed in the above-entitled action.
The original plaintiff in this action sued for personal injuries suffered when he was struck by defendant's automobile. Plaintiff recovered a verdict. Plaintiff then moved for an increase in the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial on the question of damages, which motion was denied. Plaintiff then appealed to this court from the order denying his motion. In conjunction with his appeal, plaintiff had a transcript of the evidence prepared, the case settled, and the record printed. Before his appeal could be heard, the original plaintiff died, and, pursuant to stipulation, the present plaintiff, special administrator of the original plaintiff's estate, was substituted as plaintiff. Subsequently, defendant's motion for dismissal of the appeal, with costs for defendant, was granted because of the failure of plaintiff to file briefs. Defendant was allowed $10 statutory costs.
Judgment was then entered in this matter by the district court, and defendant promptly appealed from this judgment. Pursuant to defendant's request, this court ordered that the appeal be heard on the printed records that plaintiff had prepared and submitted *Page 506 
for the previous appeal. Plaintiff was notified of this action and made no objection.
This second appeal was heard, and plaintiff prevailed. Plaintiff submitted costs and disbursements including a $520 item for printing the record, a $164.50 item for the transcript, and a $44.50 item for the bond of the special administrator. The clerk of the supreme court allowed the first two items, i. e., the transcript- and record-printing costs, but disallowed the cost of the special administrator's bond as such.
Defendant appeals from the allowance by the clerk of the cost of the transcript and the printing of the record, setting up that such material was printed for a previous appeal. Plaintiff appeals from the disallowance of the cost of the special administrator's bond.
Plaintiff incurred the costs involved in the transcribing and printing of the record in order to prosecute his original appeal. That appeal was concluded against plaintiff in the sense that no costs were allowed him. Plaintiff bore the costs because he failed to prosecute that appeal. Subsequently, plaintiff made no attempt to have the record returned. The records were left in the custody of the court and, in the interests of economy, defendant quite properly requested that his appeal be presented on parts of that record. See, Fitzgerald v. Hennepin County Catholic B. L. Assn. 56 Minn. 424,57 N.W. 1066, 59 N.W. 191. Plaintiff made no objection to the court's allowing defendant's appeal to be heard on that record. As we said in Hess v. G. N. Ry. Co. 98 Minn. 198, 202,108 N.W. 7, 803:
"* * * The court might in cases of this kind impose as a condition to the use of an adversary's printed record the payment of an equitable proportion of the cost of printing the same; but the question was not raised at the time the application was granted in this case, and we are without authority to now impose it."
This court also pointed out that (98 Minn. 201, 108 N.W. 803) — *Page 507 
"* * * The matter of disbursements on appeals to this court between adverse parties in actions at law is purely statutory. The statutes provide that the losing party shall pay the disbursements necessarily incurred by the prevailing party. The court has no discretion either in the allowance, disallowance, or apportionment of the same, and the only question involved in this case is whether the items sought to be taxed were incurred by defendant in consequence of plaintiff's appeal."
M.S.A. 607.01 reads in part:
"In all cases the prevailing party shall be allowed his disbursements necessarily paid or incurred."
It is clear that the disbursements at issue here were not necessarily incurred because of this appeal. Hess v. G. N. Ry. Co. 98 Minn. 198, 108 N.W. 7, 803; see, Muirhead v. Johnson,232 Minn. 408, 46 N.W.2d 502. The conclusion of the clerk must be reversed as to the taxation of the transcript and record.
The cost of the special administrator's bond was properly disallowed since the bond was filed in probate court, apparently in compliance with M.S.A. 525.32, and not for the purpose of allowing the special administrator to respond to this appeal.
The clerk's taxation is affirmed as to the bond.
MR. JUSTICE ROGER L. DELL, not having been a member of the court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. *Page 508