Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina
North Carolina Railroad v. Goodwin
110 N.C. 175
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of North Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- North Carolina
- Date
- 1892-02-05
- Topic
- general
Clark, J.: By chapter 41, Acts of 1879, the taxation of attorney’s fees in the bills of cost, which had theretofore been allowed, was prohibited. In The Code of 1883 no provision for taxation of counsel fees was made except in section ! 948, which permits such allowance to counsel appointed by the Court to represent the rights of any party in interest who, or whose residence, is unknown, in proceedings to condemn real estate for railroad purposes. The reference in section 1946 to the “costs and counsel fees allowed by the Court” is to such counsel fees as the Court was authorized by law to tax, *176 to-wit, in the case mentioned in section 1948. In the present instance the counsel whose fees are sought to be taxed against the railroad company was not appointed by the Court to represent the owner of an interest in real estate who, or whose residence, was unknown. The motion to tax an allowance'in his behalf against the opposite party was therefore properly denied.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed North Carolina Railroad v. Goodwin. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 8 opinions
By chapter 41, Acts of 1879, the taxation of attorney’s fees in the bills of cost, which had theretofore been allowed, was prohibited. In The Code of 1883 no provision for taxation of counsel fees was made except in section ! 948, which permits such allowance to counsel appointed by the Court to represent the rights of any party in interest who, or whose residence, is unknown, in proceedings to condemn real estate for railroad purposes. The reference in section 1946 to the “costs and counsel fees allowed by the Court” is to such counsel fees as the Court was authorized by law to tax, *176 to-wit, in the case mentioned in section 1948. In the present instance the counsel whose fees are sought to be taxed against the railroad company was not appointed by the Court to represent the owner of an interest in real estate who, or whose residence, was unknown. The motion to tax an allowance'in his behalf against the opposite party was therefore properly denied. The question of the allowance of counsel fees not against the opposite party, but out of a trust fund which he is employed to protect is considered and discussed in Chemical Co. v. Johnson, 101 N. C., 223; Gay v. Davis, 107 N. C., 269; Mordecai v. Devereux, 74 N. C., 673.
Affirmed.