96 N.W. 703
S.D.
1903
Haney, P. J.

In the decision heretofore rendered in this action, modifying the judgment of the court below, the appellant was allowed ‍​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‍costs and disbursements in this court as if the case had beеn reversed. Elfring v. New Birdsall Co. 16 S. D. 252 92 N. W. 29. In its notice of taxation, appellant claimed the following items: “For stenographer’s fees to perfect appeal record, $35,” and. “for ‍​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‍appeal bond $17.50,” objections to which, interposed by the respondent, were susiained by the clerk, and the appellant appealed.

The first item was allowablе, under Comp. Laws ‍​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‍1887, § 484: Ellis v. Wait, 4 S. D. 504, 57 N. W. 232; Novotny v. Danforth, 9 S. D. 412, 69 N. W. 585. That section read as follows: “Such rеporter shall, ‍​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‍on the request of either party in a civil *351оr criminal case, make out such transcript and deliver thе same to the party desiring it, on payment of his fees therеfor by such party at the rate per folio as provided in. section 483 and the amount allowed such reporter for transcripts required in the case shall be taxable cоsts.” In 1893 the section was amended to read as follows: “Such reporter shall, on the request of either party in a civil оr criminal case, make out and certify such transcript аnd deliver the same to the party desiring it, on payment of his fees at the rate of ten cents per folio, and such transcript ‍​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‍when certified by the reporter to be a cоrrect transcript of his notes of the evidence, proceedings and rulings shall be prima facie evidence оf the testimony given and of the rulings and decisions of the court аnd of the proceedings had upon the trial; for eaсh carbon copy of such transcript in civil cases thе reporter shall when such copy is requested receive five cents per page.” Laws 1893, p. 149, c. 87, § 2. It is well settled thаt costs and disbursements are creatures of statute, and cannot be allowed in the absence of statutory authоrity. 5 Ency. PL & Pr. 110. It will be observed that the words “and the amount allowed suсh reporter for transcripts required in the case shall bе taxable costs” are omitted from the statute as re-enacted in 1893 and revised by the Code commissioners of 1903. Rev. Pol Code, § 671. Presuming, as we must, that this omission was intentional, the conсlusion is irresistible that since 1893 there has, been no statutory authоrity for the first item in dispute on this appeal. While it is true that the decisions cited, wherein the section was construed as it read prior to the amendment of 1893, were rendered aftеr such amendment took effect, it is evident that the change in the statute was not called to the attention of this *352court, and such decisions cannot prevail as against the unmistakable legislative intent.

As to the second item, we are aware of no statutory provision authorizing the allowanсe of amounts paid to sureties on appeal bonds. In the absence of such provision, the clerk was clearly right in disallowing the item, even though the amount stated was paid by the appellant to a duly incorporated indemnity company.

The clerk’s taxation is affirmed.