Bradstreet Company v. Higgins,
114 U.S. 262 (1885)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Bradstreet Company v. Higgins, 114 U.S. 262 (1885)

Bradstreet Company v. Higgins

Argued March 2, 1885

Decided April 13, 1885

114 U.S. 262


A defendant in error on whose motion a writ of error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction may recover costs in this Court which are incident to his motion to dismiss.

Page 114 U. S. 263

This case having been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the defendant in error made the following application to the Court.

"The plaintiffs in error failing to print the record, the requisite amount was advanced by the defendant in error, with the understanding that in case of his success this would be refunded."

"The Clerk now informs the defendant in error that the amount advanced by him cannot be taxed in his favor, nor any of his other costs in this court, because the cause was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. As the taxation of costs in such cases is a matter of daily occurrence, and frequently of much importance, we take this occasion of bringing the subject to the attention of the court."

"* * * *"

"We ask that the clerk may be directed to tax the costs of printing the record and for supervising the same against the plaintiff in error, the Bradstreet Co."

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.