Hiwassee Gold Mining Co. v. Hotchkiss Mountain Mining & Reduction Co.
Hiwassee Gold Mining Co. v. Hotchkiss Mountain Mining & Reduction Co.
Opinion of the Court
The Hiwassee Gold Mining Company made application in the United States land office, at Gunnison, for a United States patent to the Palmer lode mining claim; and The Hotchkiss Mountain Mining and Reduction Company made application in the same land office for a United States patent to the lima lode mining claim. The surface boundaries of
Code section 272 provides that whenever judgment shall be rendered against either party in a suit for the possession of realty, it shall be lawful for the party against whom judgment is rendered, at any time before the first day of the succeeding term, to pay all costs recovered thereby; and, upon application of such party, such costs having been paid, the court shall vacate the judgment, and grant a new trial of the cause. The Hiwassee Company, within the time limited, moved the court to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial, alleging that it had paid the costs of the suits. The court found that all the costs in both cases had been paid
It is possible that The Hotchkiss Mountain Mining and Reduction Company, by reason of its having been plaintiff in one of the adverse suits, and victor in both, would, by the terms of section 423 of the General Statutes, have had a right to the taxation of those sums as costs. If these had been so taxed, their payment, together with the payment of the other costs, by the losing party, would have been a condition precedent to the granting of a new trial. But the attorney’s fee and the expense of adverse, were not taxed as costs. They were included in the judgment proper, as being in the nature of damages. And it was not by virtue of the statute that their recovery was adjudged. The sole ground of their allowance was the stipulation of the parties.
All that is required of the losing party in ejectment, in order to a new trial, is the payment of the costs which have been taxed. When he has paid those, his right is complete, and it is error to deny it. Ho part of the judgment proper-need be paid, — nothing but the costs. The court found that the appellant had paid all the costs except the $50.00 and the $40.00. But those sums were not costs, so that, upon the court’s finding, there was a full compliance with the Code provision, and a new trial should have been ordered.
The judgment will be reversed.
Reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.