Coddington v. Harburger
Opinion of the Court
This is a motion to substitute as a party defendant, in place of the sheriff, the obligor in an undertaking given under section 1709 of the Code to indemnify the sheriff under the claim of a third person. The surety is entitled to be substituted under section 1711 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and all parties consent to the substitution, the only question presented being as to a demand for costs or expenses made by the sheriff through his counsel, to which objection is made by the moving proposed substituted defendant. Section 1711 of the Code provides that the sureties are entitled to be substituted as defendants in an action as if the chattel had been levied upon by virtue of an execution. Section 1422 applies to such character of proceedings, and section 1423 of the Code provides “ Upon granting the order the court may, in its discretion, require the indemnitors to furnish additional security to the plaintiff and to pay the reasonable expenses of the defendant, necessarily incurred before the order is granted, or may impose such other terms for the security of either of the original parties as justice requires.” It is under this last section that the sheriff’s counsel insists he is entitled to terms for granting the motion. Costs are creatures of the statute, and where no express provision of law is made for awarding costs the court is absolutely without power to award them. I find no provision of law authorizing the court to award costs to the sheriff upon a motion-of the character now before me, and the only provision having any bearing upon the question is section 3236, which provides: “ Costs upon a motion in an action, where the costs thereof are not specially regulated in this act *, * * may be awarded, either absolutely or to abide the event of the action, or of the reference, to any party, in the discretion of the court or judge.” This, of course, refers to motion costs, which under section 3251 of the Code, subdivision 3, cannot exceed ten dollars. Counsel for the defendant sheriff has argued that precedent has established the rule that taxable costs to date be awarded to the sheriff upon motions such as the one before the court, but precedent is no justification for violation of the law. I am referred to the case of Newhorn v. Bowe, 5 Law Bull. 39,
Motion granted, with ten dollars costs to sheriff.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.