191 P. 654 | Or. | 1920
The position of the defendant upon this appeal is that it is entitled to a judgment at this time for the expense of the transcript of the testimony. The contention on behalf of plaintiff is that
By Section 562, L. O. L., “costs are allowed, of course, to the plaintiff upon a judgment in his favor
The defendant prevailed upon its appeal to this court and obtained a judgment of reversal, which entitled it to costs in this court. The expenditure for the transcript of the testimony is no part of such costs. The outlay for transcribing the testimony is not an incident to that judgment. The item of disbursement claimed is in exactly the same condition as defendant’s other disbursements, if any, upon the first trial, such as witness fees. It is true that the expense was incurred while the case might be said to be “in transitu.” It is by statute directed to “be taxed as other costs in the case.” It is practically the same as if a part of the official reporter’s per diem compensation had been paid by defendant. If the shorthand notes in the case had been transcribed before judgment, the expense thereof would have been governed by the same rule of law. We make no reference to costs or disbursements in a suit in equity.
We therefore- conclude that the determination of the trial court, as the case stood at the time of the order appealed from, was correct. The judgment is therefore affirmed. Aeeirmed. Rehearing Denied.