BRUNER v. KANSAS MOLINE PLOW CO.

BRUNER v. KANSAS MOLINE PLOW CO.
1909 OK 155
103 P. 673
24 Okla. 158
Case Number: 791
Decided: 07/13/1909
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

BRUNER et al.
v.
KANSAS MOLINE PLOW CO.

Syllabus

¶0 COURTS--Costs--Taxation--Review--Method--Specification of Excessiveness. In order to have this court revise the action of the lower court in taxing costs, same must be brought up for review by means of a bill of exceptions or a case-made
(a) On motion originally filed in this court to retax costs for printing the record, incurred whilst the case was pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory, under the rules of which court records were required to be printed, the cost thereof to be taxed as a part of the costs of the case, the movants having failed to specify wherein the cost for the printing of the record is excessive, the motion will be denied.

Original motion in the Supreme Court by H. S. Bruner and others against the Kansas Moline Plow Company to retax costs. Motion denied.

Gilbert & Bond, for the motion.

WILLIAMS, J.

¶1 The plaintiffs in error move this court to retax the costs in the above-entitled cause, on the ground that the fees or costs taxed in the trial court and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory are in excess of those allowed by law.

¶2 The only way that this court may re-examine the taxing of costs in the trial court is on appeal, by means of a bill of exceptions or case-made; and this being an original motion filed in this court, as to the costs taxed in the trial court, the same, as to such costs, is denied for want of jurisdiction of this court.

¶3 It further appears from the records of this court that $ 64 is taxed for printing the record. Under the rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory, records were required to be printed, and were taxed as a part of the costs of the case.

¶4 Movants failing to specifically point out wherein the cost for the printing of the record is excessive, the motion as to such item is therefore denied.

¶5 All the Justices concur.