tl'ortfLlLng, or sinceresl1lting fronithe latlds. Thisis no hardship upon him, ''as he futistbe presumed to know that said deed had .not. been recorded "as, required by said TM 'result is that the demurrer will be 'overruled;,'and the defendants' Lang and Duncan allowed 30 days in . which to anlf1f'er the bill as to this te1ili..
LEll:' 1). SiMPSON.
,. (Circuf.t DoUTt, D. SoUth. CaroUna. Jun81l,189M
,i'" " . ' . '
,'fJ;XA'!,'J:mf Q1 COsT8....l'BJNTUlG.
, . Though there may have been agreements of counsel on both ,Ides in relation thereto, costs for printing the biU"atiswer, and eviaenoe in a·''Bliit in the circuit ..' Ulilitea. cannot pe there is no rule of court on the subjeot"and Dothinlf is said about suem costs in Rev. St. U. s. iS2$, providin, the fees'Mien may be'tUeet' . ,! .' .', , .',: . ,
;,'InEquity. " 'i' OGtregl&; cdtnplainant. ' ': £'. Lee ImdWlil8:k Orr, for!defendant·
,I , ,\': .':
'Sm:ONl,[ION, iJ"; i I this 'case halVe beenta'X'ed' :by the clerk. His:tantiotl' hasbeeu'brdllght up fot-review. ·Only two iteItlS are quescertain sum to the special master.' The lawful-ness bf/,this chargeii!rhot disputed.; The amount: only is criticised. 'Theother'item Is'a charge for $121 for printing the reoordand testi'mony. When the bill was filed, and the preliininaryinjunction granted, :the bill and 'the order were printed under a suggestion <if the court. 'When· th('l' !answer :wasflled, ii was also printed, at the suggestion of the ,defenda.nt's; attorneys, naturally wanted theinl.tlswei"in print, as ihe bill ha:dbeen printed. When all the'testimony Wl\sin,it was prepared for the· printer; counsel on ;both sides and the clerk of this court C"onfel'ring aboutw'ha1l pa;rts and how much ofitslioul"d be printed. When Was 'reached, the clerk, who had superintended and superintended this. The testimony ·the imd record were for and were used by both parties 'in the cause. so far as it appears, aboutpayiI1g the expense of the printing. The clerk was under the impressidfi that each share of this expense. How this 1mpression ;party would bear an .was denved heeanhotsay positively, except that both parties seemed to concur in' the necessity for 'printing, and united in preparing the matter to. :11e, printed, ahd both used ·the printed matter during all proceedings. So when;the bill for printing came in, sometime before the cause was' heard,he seht it to each"party, making requisition for one-half from eachi ,The com plainant promptly paid his half. The .defendant refuaedto ,p8yan-y,part of this expense, unless he lost the
case. Even we're there 'an allegation of a verbalundetstanding or agree;' ment between counsel in the ,matter, the court could:nClt notice it. The stipulations or agreementsofcoul1sel must be in writing. Nor would the court undertake, in a taxation of costs, to enforce an agreement, written or verbal, between attorneys, unless the cost of printing can be taxed against the losing party, on whom the decree has fixed the,costs. We have no rule on the subject. There being no rule, and the fee-bill (section 823, Rev. St.)1 being silent, this charge cannot be tax,ed. Spaulding v. Tucker, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 6.33. Let this item of printing be eliminated, and in other respects the taxation be confirmed.
STA.TE OF MJSSOURI
HAZARD "'. SPIVA
HAZARD fl. SPIVA..
(Circuit Oourt, E. D. M1.B80'UN, E. D.)
Under Rev. St. Mo. '18811. 5 76Oll, whioh provides that nO seizure of personal property for taxes on real estate '!shall be made until the collector has made demand for the paYJIlent of the tax, either In person or by deputy, to the party liable to pay the same, or by leaving a written or printed notice at his plnee of abode * * * with some member of the family, " a deliJand ,upon an agent in charge of the taxed property.is insufficient to justify a seizure, though the owner is a non-resident, and it is Impossible to make demand on him in either of the statutory modes.
A tax-book' authenticated by the seal of, the court, under which a tax collector is autho,,:,izedby statute to s,eize and sell property to enforce the collection of taxes, ',is process, 'witl1in the meaning of Rev. St. Mo. 1889. i4711, which limits the right to bring anv.ction of replevin to cases whlilre the property "has not been seized under ",ny execution, or attachment against the property of the plainttif." 8. Sum. ' ,Where property is held by the Collector nnder the authority of such book, the fact that he seized such property without first making proper demand for the taxes the owner against whom the tax wlislevied to maintain replevin the,refor. ,
J\;tLaw.On demurrer to plea. The first of these suits was an action on the officral bond of H. S. Spiva, as collector of the revenue for Madison county, Mo., to recover damages for an unlawful levy made September 15, 1889, on certain personal property of Hazard's, to enforce payment of certain taxe,s assessed against Hazard estate for the year 1888. The laws Missouri provide, in substance,that no levy shall be made under a tax-bill until a demand for the payment of the same shall have been made by the collector or his deputy, of the party liable therefor, or by leaving a written or,printeddemand at his place of abode with some member of the familyoyer 15 years of age. Rev. St. Mo. 1889, § 7608. The complaint is that the levy' was made without such demand, and was
,JThissectiou' provides the fees which shall be taxableaa COlts.