{ "id": 11269954, "name": "JOHN T. SMITH v. CASHIE AND CHOWAN RAILROAD AND LUMBER COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Cashie & Chowan Railroad & Lumber Co.", "decision_date": "1908-09-16", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "334", "last_page": "336", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "148 N.C. 334" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "108 N. C., 405", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650935 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/108/0405-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 N. C., 624", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658899 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/133/0624-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 N. C., 154", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272868 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/92/0154-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 N. C., 853", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656515 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/119/0853-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 N. C., 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "142 N. C,, 26", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651546 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/142/0026-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 N. C., 375", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652031 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/140/0375-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 217, "char_count": 3294, "ocr_confidence": 0.465, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.871964132982944e-08, "percentile": 0.45984360478159153 }, "sha256": "53a74635cea2357d6a4cdfe301adb7a84edc194b4c673277606c1b23e2bcafa3", "simhash": "1:08e9bb1c90bc044c", "word_count": 567 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:17.237307+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JOHN T. SMITH v. CASHIE AND CHOWAN RAILROAD AND LUMBER COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Oi.arK, C. J.\nTbis case bas been bere twice before upon tbe defendant\u2019s appeal (140 N. C., 375, and 142 N. C,, 26). On tbis last (third) trial below tbe plaintiff again recovered judgment, and tbe defendant sought to offset against the recovery the costs it bad paid in tbe Superior Court on tbe two former trials, whose results bad been corrected on appeal, especially tbe costs paid tbe Clerk for making out tbe. transcripts for those appeals. In effect, tbe defendant moved to tax the costs of those trials and of tbe transcripts thereof against tbe plaintiff.\nTbe court properly refused to grant tbe motion as to the' costs of tbe Superior Court on tbe two former trials. \u201cTbe costs (of the trial court) follow the result of the final judgment.\u201d Williams v. Hughes, 139 N. C., 19, citing State v. Horne, 119 N. C., 853; Kincaid v. Graham, 92 N. C., 154. With a few exceptional instances (set out in Dotson v. Railroad, 133 N. C., 624), tbe party who recovers final judgment in tbe trial court recovers all tbe costs of that court. It is true that tbe costs of transcript and certificate are not part of tbe costs of tbis Court. Roberts v. Lewald, 108 N. C., 405. Yet it is said in Dobson v. Railroad, supra, that \u201cthey are a part of tbe necessary costs of tbe appeal, and not strictly costs of tbe Superior Court incident to the trial .and procedure in that court. Hence tbe successful appellant who bas paid them is entitled to recover them from tbe appellee, and * * * they are not recoverable back in tbe final judgment, should it go in favor of the opposite' party. The Code, sec. 540.\u201d\nIt follows that, if tbe defendant did not actually recover tbe costs of transcripts and certificates paid by it on the two former successful appeals, it is entitled to have those sums deducted from tbe costs now taxed against it in favor of tbe plaintiff. Such costs are. like tbe costs of tbis Court on said appeal, which, paid by the unsuccessful plaintiff-appellee,. cannot be recovered back by him, though he now recovers final judgment in the controversy. Indeed, the costs of defendant in the two appeals had not been actually paid by plaintiff, but the Judge' properly allowed them to be deducted from the plaintiff\u2019s judgment.\nThe judgment is\nModified and Affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Oi.arK, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Day, Bell & Dunn and Murray Allen for plaintiff.", "Winston \u00a3 Matthews and St. Leon Scull for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOHN T. SMITH v. CASHIE AND CHOWAN RAILROAD AND LUMBER COMPANY.\n(Filed 16 September, 1908.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 Costs of Superior Court \u2014 Final Judgment.\nWith but a few exceptions, as, for instance, where continuances are granted upon agreements, or judgment, that a party pay costs, the costs of the Superior Court follow final judgment.\n2. Same \u2014 Successful Appeal \u2014 Costs, an Offset to Final Judgment\u2014 Transcript and Certificate.\nWhen plaintiff recovers final judgment in the Superior Court after two successful appeals- by defendant, the costs of all the trials in the Superior Court should be taxed against the defendant, but it is entitled to offset against the final recovery all the costs properly paid by it on its successful appeals, including the transcript and certificates.\nMotioN to tax costs, heard by W. R. Allen, J., who found the facts by consent, at November Term, 1907, of Bertie.\nDefendant appealed.\nDay, Bell & Dunn and Murray Allen for plaintiff.\nWinston \u00a3 Matthews and St. Leon Scull for defendant." }, "file_name": "0334-01", "first_page_order": 364, "last_page_order": 366 }