JUDGMENT of affirmance heretofore entered herein,Meyer v. Milliken, 105 Colo. 532, 100 P.2d 151, vacated and the judgment of the district court reversed en banc without written opinion, pursuant to mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States now on file. See Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. ___ 61 Sup. Ct. 339,85 L.Ed. 269. The defendants in error to have judgment for their costs herein expended, including that of the cost of the supplemental abstract.

MR. JUSTICE KNOUS and MR. JUSTICE HILLIARD dissent.

Judgment of affirmance heretofore entered herein, Meyer v. Milliken, 105 Colo. 532, 100 P. (2d) 151, vacated and the judgment of the district court reversed en banc without written opinion, pursuant to mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States now on file. See Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S....... 61 Sup. Ct. 339, 85 L. Ed. 269. The defendants in error to have judgment for their costs herein expended, including that of the cost of the supplemental abstract.

Mr. Justice Knous and Mr. Justice Hilliard dissent.

dissenting.

In so far as our order takes cognizance of the reversal judgment of the United States Supreme Court and makes manifest our obedience thereto, I am in accord with its terms; but as to the costs incurred by the *296prevailing parties in that court, my views are: First, that that is a matter wholly without our jurisdiction; and, second, it clearly is one within the exclusive control of the reversing authority. In its mandate that distinguished and supreme tribunal fixed the total of the items of costs to be recovered at the sum of $71.41, which, as I conceive, is binding upon all concerned. If erroneous in any particular, or if for any reason it may be thought to be wrong, the attention of the court responsible for the final judgment should be called to the matter and by it corrected if correction be due. I regard our order concerning costs as extrajudicial.

Mr. Justice Knous concurs in this statement.