{
  "id": 5813533,
  "name": "Charles Crum, Defendant in Error, v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crum v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1918-10-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "518",
  "last_page": "520",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "212 Ill. App. 518"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 270,
    "char_count": 5025,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3061430802636296e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6233423261356164
    },
    "sha256": "61a335a47a43c5001ab22a7be68d74a678d18d675399dae9f2b359cda2d2c234",
    "simhash": "1:8736cf42482134d8",
    "word_count": 894
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:34:34.102394+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Crum, Defendant in Error, v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Graves\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendant in error sued plaintiff in error and recovered judgment. On appeal to the Appellate Court that judgment was reversed for error and the cause was remanded to the County Court. \u2019 After the cause was redocketed in the County Court the parties set-tied the case and judgment was rendered hy agreement of parties against plaintiff in error and for costs of suit. Later a fee bill was issued for the costs. The fee bill contained, besides all the regular and proper costs in the County Court, the costs in the Appellate Court in matter of the appeal from the former judgment, and also an item for stenographer\u2019s fees in taking a certain deposition. A motion to retax the costs was made and an order was entered thereon directing the retaxing of the costs so as to eliminate the stenographer\u2019s fees but denying the motion so far as it related to the costs in the Appellate Court. It is to reverse this order retaxing costs that this writ of error is prosecuted.\nAt the common law there was no such thing as a judgment for costs. Under our practice a judgment for costs can only be entered when the same is authorized by statute or by the agreement of the parties. There is no statute authorizing a trial court to tax as costs in that court, costs that are made in the Appellate or Supreme Court. The costs in those courts are disposed of in the judgments there entered. See section 22, ch. 33 (J. & A. \u00b6 2736) and section 27, ch. 37, Rev. St. (J. & A. \u00b6 2970). There is no proof in this record as to what the stipulation of the parties in fact was or that it was agreed between them that plaintiff in error was to pay the costs in the Appellate Court. It follows that in determining whether the order to retax costs is correct or not, this court is limited to the construction of the language of the judgment on which the fee bill in question issued, and in doing that the foregoing propositions must be kept in mind.\nThe judgment referred to is in the following words: \u201cBy agreement of parties judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Chas. Crum, against the defendant, the C., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., in the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) and costs of suit.\u201d The judgment is, to say the least, extremely informal, but is before us not for review but construction. The words \u201ccosts of suit,\u201d in view of what has been said, can only be construed to mean such costs as that court at that time had statutory power to enter, or, in other words, the costs in that court. If the agreement between the parties in fact was that plaintiff in error should also pay the costs made in the Appellate Court, judgment for which had already been entered in that court, it may be defendant in error can yet enforce that contract in an original action, but there is nothing in this record from which it can be determined that the judgment referred to included such costs.\nThe order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded to the County Court with directions to quash the fee bill as to all costs taxed in the Appellate Court as well as the items which the County Court did eliminate by the order appealed from. The item of costs in the Appellate Court to be finally eliminated are as follows:'\nFees\u2014Costs in Appellate Court............$17.85\nFees\u2014Printing Abstracts.................. 26.00\nFees\u2014Lucy Bishop, Court Reporter........52.50\nAdvance costs paid by appellant............ 10.00\nReversed and remanded with directions.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Graves"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George B. Gillespie, for plaintiff in error.",
      "J. K. Lauher, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles Crum, Defendant in Error, v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error.\n1. Costs, \u00a7 5 \u2014rule as to judgment for at common law. At common law a judgment for costs does not exist.\n2. Costs, \u00a7 5 \u2014when judgment for can be entered. A judgment can- only be entered for costs when the same is authorized by statute or by agreement of the parties.\n3. Costs\u2014absence of statute authorising trial court to tax costs made in Appellate or Supreme Court. There is no statute authorizing a trial court to tax as costs in that court, costs that are made in the Appellate or Supreme Court, the costs in those courts being disposed of in the judgments there entered.\n4. Costs, \u00a7 64 \u2014when words \u201ccosts of suit\u201d in judgment construed to cover only legal. The words \u201ccosts of suit\u201d in a judgment for costs that judgment is entered by agreement \u201cin favor of the plaintiff * * * against the defendant * * * in the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) and costs of suit,\u201d must be construed to mean only such costs as the trial court had authority to enter, and hence not to include costs in the Appellate Court on a prior appeal.\nError to the County Court of Edgar county; the Hon.- Dan V. Dayton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the September term, 1917.\n.Reversed and remanded with directions.\nOpinion filed October 22, 1918.\nGeorge B. Gillespie, for plaintiff in error.\nJ. K. Lauher, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0518-01",
  "first_page_order": 550,
  "last_page_order": 552
}