M. filed a bill in equity against S. for the infringement of letters patent. S. answered and filed a cross-bill. The decree dismissed the original bill from which M. appealed. Thereupon S. took an appeal in the cross suit from rulings excluding evidence. In this court the clerk required S. to pay one half the cost of printing the record. This court, after argument, affirmed the decree dismissing the original bill, and dismissed the cross-appeal. 128 U.S. 605. Held, that S. was entitled to recover of M. the amount so paid.
AFTER the entry of the decrees in Marsh v. Nichols and Nichols v. Marsh, 128 U.S. 605, the following motion was made, entitled in the two causes.
And now comes the said defendant, Nichols, Shepard Co., by Charles F. Burton, their solicitor, and moves the court now here, that they, the said Nichols, Shepard Co., do recover against the said Elon A. Marsh, Minard Lefever and James Scott, as costs to be taxed in their favor, one half of the amount required for printing the record and supervising the printing of the record in said causes, in addition to the amount, taxable and to be taxed in their favor, in the first above entitled cause.
This motion is based on the records in said causes and on the affidavit of Charles F. Burton, hereto attached, and will be brought on for hearing on Monday, the 25th day of February, at the opening of said court.
To R.A. PARKER, ESQ.,
Solicitor for Marsh Lefever and Scott.
CHARLES F. BURTON,
Solicitor for Nichols, Shepard Co.
STATE AND EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, | ss. County of Wayne, |
Charles F. Burton, duly sworn, deposes and says, that he is the solicitor for Nichols, Shepard Co., in the above entitled appeal and cross appeal, and that in response to a request from the clerk of this court, he sent to said clerk, on the 16th day of November, 1887, the sum of two hundred and seventy-five dollars, which the said clerk notified him was the amount of money required to defray the portion of the expense properly to be borne in the first instance, by said Nichols, Shepard Co., as one half the cost of printing the record in said cases.
CHARLES F. BURTON.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 21st day of January, 1889.
CHARLES H. FISK,
Notary Public. Wayne County, Michigan.
PER CURIAM:
On consideration of the motion for a retaxation of costs in this cause, and of the argument of counsel thereupon, had as well in support of as against the same:
It is now here ordered by the court that the amount advanced by the appellants in this cause towards printing the record be recoverable by them from the appellees herein.
[This order is entitled only in the cross-suit of Nichols v. Marsh.]