Van Deusen v. Newcomer

Decided April 8, 1879

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1879-04-08

Defendant in error moved for a retaxation of costs, because tbe clerk had refused to reduce tbe allowance for printing tbe record, and for tbe return, she claiming that it was needlessly prolix, and that no allowance should be made for matters introduced beyond, wbat was reasonably necessary. Eeliance was bad on Eule 59 of this court.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1892

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-04-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Tbe clerk has no authority to determine wbat deduction should be made on account of undue prolixity. It rests entirely with tbe court to determine whether such an abuse exists, and this will be done usually when tbe ease is disposed of. It is not always tbe fault of tbe appealing party that tbe record assumes undue proportions, and be should not be punished unless in fault. In tbe present case we were not satisfied there was any such fault in tbe plaintiff in error as to bring him within the rule, and we therefore did not, and shall not now impose any penalty, or make any deduction.

¶2Motion denied.