246 FKDEBAL BKPOBTBS. �tion for value, and tendered four sureties in succession. Each surety in the first instance justified as sufi5cient, but on examination proved to be ■worthless and was rejected. There was, in fact, a bold and persistent attempt on the part of the clainiants to obtain possession of property in the cus- tody of the court by substituting therefor a worthless stipu- lation. The examinations made necessary in order to defeat this attempt involved a very considerable outlay in the way of fees paid for searching for judgments and conveyances of real estate which the proposed sureties claimed to own ; and the question is whether these expenses can be taxed in the eosts. �In a case like this, where there was good ground to believe that a fraud upon the court was being attempted, I think the expenditure for searches was justified, and should be taxed as part of the costs. So, also, I think it proper to allow the $50 dollars paid real estate brokers to examine real estate claimed to be of value, but found to be of little value, in order to enable the court to be infonued in respect thereto. �Expenses incurred under a lawful order of court may be taxed as part of the costs, and inserted as part of the judg- ment against the losing party, {Neffv. Pennoyer, 3 Sawy. 336,) and, upon the eame principle, expenses made necessary in order to defeat an attempt to defraud the court may be taxed and allowed. Upon the presentation of the first surety, in view of what then appeared, the court, if applied to, would have in the first instance direoted that searches be made, not only as against that surety, but also against any others that might subsequently be offered by these elaimants. �The notary's expenses of taking the voluminous examina- tions of the several sureties may also be allowed. The ex- penses of telegraphing to attomeys in Georgia to attend at the examination of witnesses there are not allowed. ��� �
