Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Minn. 522

Cooper v. Stinson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 15, 1861

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1861-07-15

<p>The Statute (Convp. Statp. 578, sec. 9,) providing for tho allowance of expem }s for printing papers in appeal, does not authorize such allowance when prepared in any other way.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1935

2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2018611870188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

¶1By the Court

ElaNdrau, J.

¶2The counsel for tbe Appellant being successful in this Court, claims to recover, as one item of his disbursements, the amount paid for preparing his paper boots for the Court. The books were not printed but written. The Statute (Comp. Stats., 578, sec. 9,) provides as follows:

“ The Clerk must insert in the entry of judgment the necessary disbursements, including the fees of officers allowed by law, the fees of witnesses, the necessary expenses of commissions, the compensation of referees, and the expense of printing papers on appeal.”

¶3The word “ including,” as used in the above provisio' , of Statute does not necessarily confine the items of dishm-ye-ments recoverable to those enumerated, but the special provision for “ printing papers on appeal,” does exclude the idea of a recovery for such papers, when prepared in any other way.

¶4We have decided in the case of Hart vs. Caldwell, 4 Minn. R., 552, that a party may recover for printing his papers on appeal; we now decide that he can only recover for such papers when printed.

/5/minn/522 · .json · Public domain