Opinion
08-31-1907
BUTTERWORTH-JUDSON CO. v. CENTRAL R. R. OF NEW JERSEY.
George Holmes, for the motion. John A. Miller, opposed.
On motion for retaxation of costs.
For opinion of the court, see 66 Atl. 198.
George Holmes, for the motion. John A. Miller, opposed.
EMERY, V. C. The items objected to are those which relate to, or are the result of, the amendment (two) made to the bill. As these amendments were made after defendants filed answer, which was not objected to, they come within rule 68, which requires complainant to pay costs on order to amend, and rule 69, which requires complainant to furnish defendant certified copy of amended bill. Rule 108 also expressly forbids including costs of amendment occasioned by complainant's own fault, mistake, or laches in costs on final decree. As the amendments were made for the purpose of including matters which might have been included in the original bill, the costs of amendment come within this rule also. All of the items objected to, except the item of drawing and engrossing amended bill—$41.40 to solicitor and six cents to clerk—come within these rules, and must be disallowed. The drawing and engrossing of the amended bill, however, became necessary, under rule 71, in order to make the record of the cause for final hearing and decree and for enrollment. This item should, therefore, be allowed as part of the costs on final hearing on the amended bill. The cost of engrossing the affidavits to the amended bill, however, cannot be allowed, as these affidavits are not proof in the cause at final hearing, and the affidavits taken on the amendments do not seem from the record to have been used except on the application to amend.
All of the items objected to, except the item for drawing and engrossing amended bill, will be disallowed, and the costs will be retaxed on that basis.