the claim admitted by the answer to be due, in accordance with the provisions of § 5023, Comp. Laws, should plaintiff be so advised. The issue raised by the pleadings will stand for disposition, in all respects, as though no judgment had ever been rendered. All concur.
Wallin, J., having been of counsel, did not sit; Templeton, district judge, sitting by request.
John W. Jasper, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Arthur H. Hazen, Defendant and Respondent.
1. Costs in Supreme Court—How Taxed.
An appeal from the taxation of costs by the clerk of the supreme court will not be considered, as the rule of the court prescribes that costs of said court, in cases originating in a lower court, shall be taxed below after remittitur sent down.
{{c|(Opinion Filed, May 12, 1890.)
MOTION to retax costs in supreme court.
Messrs. Greene & Hildreth, for appellant; A.C. Davis, for respondent. No briefs filed.
Wallin, J. This is an attempted appeal from the taxation of costs herein as made on April 22, 1890, by the clerk of this court. The appeal will not be considered. In the opinion of this court existing statutes contemplate that in cases originating in courts below all costs and disbursements shall be taxed in the lower court; and that it will facilitate the due administration of the law to require suitors in cases coming to this court for review to tax the costs of this court below after the remittitur has gone down. The rules adopted by the late supreme court of Dakota territory, which permitted the clerk of that court to tax costs, are abrogated by a rule of this court made at the present term, which is as follows: "Ordered, that the rules of the late supreme court of Dakota territory be, and the same are, annulled and set aside so far as such rules require or permit the clerk of this court to tax and allow costs and disbursement in cases which originate in other courts and come to this court for review.
