Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

42 S.D. 556

Redfield v. Davis

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 19, 1920

South Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1920-02-19

Preceding in 'habeas corpus 'by Guy C. Redfield, as warden of the state penitentiary, against James R. -Davis.- Application for modification of judgment of Supreme Court, re costs to respondent. Respondent cited, to point that costs are allowable in habeas corpus proceedings: 21 Cyc. 384, and cases there cited; Sec. 2611, Rev. Code 1919.

Relies on In re Hammill

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Application denied · Decided 1920-02-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1959

1 district · 3 state decisions

101920193019401950decided

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 →

W'HITINlG, J.

¶1This court filed an opinion herein, wherein it sustained the trial court 'which had', in habeas corpus proceedings, granted respondent his liberty. See Redfield v. Davis, 174 N. W. 741. In the judgment entered by this court, costs were not allowed in respondent’s favor. Pie "now seeks to have such judgment modified, so that it will allow him costs.

¶2[1, 2] If we 'had power so to do, costs would be taxed in respondent’s favor. He had to go into court to free himself from unlawful "imprisonment. He was then forced to appear in this court and resist appellant’s efforts to get the judgment of the lower court reversed. Where one is compelled to defend a judgment granting him his- .liberty, and is successful in such defense, he certainly should be entitled to costs. But the power of any court to allow costs rests upon express statute; there is no implied or inherent power. 7 R. C. D. 781; 15 C. J. 21-23. Section 2600, Rev. Code 1919, authorizes costs to be taxed “in civil actions and in certiorari, mandamus and prohibition proceedings.’ Habeas corpus is not a civil action. Section 2092, Rev. Code 1919; In re Hammill, 9 S. D. 390, 69 N. W. 577.

¶3The modification prayed for is refused.

/42/sd/556 · .json · Public domain