Elder v. Horseshoe Mining & Milling Co.
Elder v. Horseshoe Mining & Milling Co.
Opinion of the Court
Upon a former appeal in this action the judgment of the trial court and its order denying a new trial were reversed, (9 S. D. 636, 70 N. W. 1060,) and defendants recovered costs and disbursements, taxed at 8373.25. The remittitur having been sent down, and the cost judgment having been entered in the lower court, defendants made application to have it entered up against the surety for costs, under Comp. Laws, § 5212, which is as follows: “After final judgment has been rendered in an action, in which security for costs has,been given, as required by this chapter, the court, on motion of the defendant, or any other person having a right to such costs or any part thereof, after ten days’ notice of such motion, may enter up judgment in the name of the defendant or his legal representatives, against the surety for costs, his executors or administrators, for the amount of the costs adjudged against the plaintiff, or so much 'thereof as-may be unpaid. Execution ma3r be issued on such judgment, as in other cases, for the use and benefit of the person entitled to such costs. ” The application was denied, and defendants appealed. When the application was’made, the action was pending and for trial It< was no nearer to a final determination of the issues involved than it was when the first trial began. No final judgment had been rendered, within the meaning of the statute. The words, “after final judg
Reference
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Under Comp. Laws, § 5212, providing that, “aft-or final judgment has been rendered in an action,” the court may enter up judgment against the surety for costs adjudged against plaintiff, such judgment cannot be entered against the sureties on a cost judgment against plaintiff, entered on reversal of the case by the supreme court, and pending a retrial.