Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 Ala. 773

Lee v. Smyley

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1849

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1849-06-15

Tried before the Hon. Jos. W. Lesesne, chancellor. The defendant in error filed a bill against the plaintiffs in error, and, after two of them had separately answered, dismissed it. The register in the bill of costs taxed the defendant in error with two solicitor’s fees, and the defendant thereupon moved the chancellor for a re-taxation of the costs. The chancellor granted the motion, and ordered the register to tax the defendant with but one fee.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1849-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 1946

6 state decisions

2018491850186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CHILTON, J.

¶1The statute declares that the law of costs shall be deemed and held as penal, and no fees shall be taken but in cases expressly provided for by law. — Digest, 239, §12. This is a sufficient indication of the Legislative intention, that the several statutes confering fees and allowing them to be taxed in the bill of costs must be strictly construed.

¶2The act of 1812 allows to counsellors and attorneys at law, for prosecuting or defending a suit in chancery, the sum of fifteen dollars, which, by the act of 1815, is to be recovered by the party prevailing in the suit, against the party cast. — Clay’s Dig. 236-7. The statute no where speaks of two or more tax fees being recovered in the same suit, however numerous the parties, or however distinct their interests may be. We do not feel-authorised to extend the operation of this statute, by giving it the equitable and liberal construction contended for, but on the contrary, must construe it strictly, and thus construed, we feel no hesitation in saying that but one tax fee can be allowed in each suit to be paid by the unsuccessful party, where defence-has been made by him or them. — Clay’s Dig. 334. Let the decree of the chancellor, disallowing more than one tax fee in the same suit, be affirmed.

/16/ala/773 · .json · Public domain