From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weiss v. Smith

United States District Court, D. Connecticut
Mar 17, 1952
103 F. Supp. 736 (D. Conn. 1952)

Opinion

Civ. No. 3366.

March 17, 1952.

William H. Timbers, and Cummings Lockwood, all of Stamford, Conn., for plaintiff.

Hyman R. Friedman, and Friedman Friedman, all of New York City, for defendant.


Defendant, in his brief, attacks two items taxed as costs, the premium on the injunction bond, and stenographic fees.

Bond premiums are, under the practice in this District, taxed as costs to the prevailing party as a matter of course under local Rule 13, Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Connecticut.

No reason appears for the disallowance of the premium here in whole or in part in the exercise of the Court's discretion.

Transcripts necessarily obtained for the use of a party in the case are taxable as costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (2).

Defendant makes no attempt to show that all or part of the transcript obtained by the plaintiff was unnecessary. Indeed, the last paragraph of defendant's brief appears to concede the necessity of the transcript for plaintiff's use.

The motion to review taxation of costs is denied.


Summaries of

Weiss v. Smith

United States District Court, D. Connecticut
Mar 17, 1952
103 F. Supp. 736 (D. Conn. 1952)
Case details for

Weiss v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:WEISS v. SMITH

Court:United States District Court, D. Connecticut

Date published: Mar 17, 1952

Citations

103 F. Supp. 736 (D. Conn. 1952)

Citing Cases

Perlman v. Feldmann

It is in accord with previous rulings of this court. See Weiss v. Smith, D.C.Conn. 1952, 103 F. Supp. 736;…

Manley v. Canterbury Corp.

The transcript was clearly "necessarily obtained for use in the case" as provided in the Statute. Costs…