The E. Luckenback

Decided January 19, 1884.)

New York Eastern District Court · decided 1884-01-19

<p>Stenourapiieii’s Fees on Tbial—When Taxed.</p> <p>A direction made in open court that the testimony given in court he taken down by a stenographer is sufficient to entitle the stenographer’s fees to be taxed by the successful party.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The judge’s notes of the trial of this cause contain the memorandum ‘Stenographer take notes.’ This memorandum indicates a direction given at the time that the testimony given in court be taken down by a stenographer. A direction to that effect made in open court is sufficient. It was unnecessary to enter a formal order. The sum paid stenographer was therefore for services rendered in pursuance of a direction of the court, and, like the expenses of printing (Dennis v. Eddy, 12 Blatchf. 195 , Fed. Cas. No. 3,793), is taxable by the successful party.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Rogers v. Brown

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-01-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1964

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 →

¶1Stenourapiieii’s Fees on Tbial—When Taxed.

¶2A direction made in open court that the testimony given in court he taken down by a stenographer is sufficient to entitle the stenographer’s fees to be taxed by the successful party.

¶3Appeal from Taxation of Costs.

¶4Goodrich, Deady & Platt, for the motion.

¶5Butler, Stillman & Hubbard, opposed.

¶7Benedict, J.

¶8The judge’s notes of the trial of this cause contain the memorandum, “stenographer takes notes.” This memorandum indicates a direction given at the time that the testimony given in court be taken down by a stenographer. A direction to that effect made in open court is sufficient. It was unnecessary to enter a formal order. The sum paid stenographer was therefore for services rendered in pursuance of a direction of the court, and, like the expenses of printing, (Dennis v. Eddy, 12 Blatchf. 195,) is taxable by the successful party.