Order of the Court. original records in certain cases from the clerk's office to be printed, at the same time remarking that he had been informed that in such cases it had been the habit of the clerk to charge half fees. Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the court, stated "that the clerk of this court had certain rights and fees of office (of which a fee for a copy of the record was one), which this court was not disposed to violate; and that the party could not withdraw the records without paying for the copies, but that any arrangement which the clerk saw proper to make would be satisfactory to the court." The original records in these cases were afterwards taken to the printer and printed, and the clerk charged and was paid full fees for one manuscript copy. At the same term the first rule for printing the records was adopted, which provided for the taxation of the fees for one manuscript copy of the record in the bill of costs. When this rule was promulgated the court consisted of Chief Justice Marshall and Associate Justices Johnson, Story, Thompson, McLean, and Baldwin. Mr. Justice Baldwin dissented on this provision of the rule, for the reason, among others, that it allowed the clerk a fee for a copy whether one was made or not. Under the rule thus adopted the printing of records began, and from the first the original records were sent to the printer, and a fee for one manuscript copy was charged in the costs, when in fact no copies were made. There is abundant evidence that at the outset this practice was directly or indirectly approved by the court. In 1839, the House of Representatives instructed the Judiciary Committee to "inquire what costs are charged against the United States for printed copies of records of suits pending in the Supreme Court which have been printed at the expense of the United States, . . and whether any legislation is necessary in relation to costs of suits in said court." The committee reported, submitting a statement of the clerk on the subject, and were discharged. From this statement of the clerk, and from other evidence on file, we are satisfied the committee, or some of its members, visited the office during the progress of their inquiries, and possessed Order of the Court. themselves fully of the mode of doing the business and of the compensation therefor. In 1859, the rules were revised by Chief Justice Taney under the direction of the court, and the provision for printing the records was put into the form in which it now appears in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Rule 10. We are advised that prior to the death of Chief Justice Taney no manuscript copies of the records were ever made, and that the fee for one copy was always charged in the costs. Since the death of Chief Justice Taney, copies have in some cases been made. The present clerk has followed the practice of his predecessors. We are entirely satisfied that the practice, as it now exists, is in all material respects what it has been for more than fifty years, and that at the beginning it received the approval of the court. No one now on the bench ever heard of any complaint or of any application for a retaxation of costs, on account of what was done, until late in the last term, when a motion for retaxation was made in the case of James v. Campbell. There is an apparent conflict between the rules and the practice under them which ought not to exist. It is also evident that what was fifty years ago no more than a reasonable compensation for the important services of the clerk is now, under the operation of the rules as then construed and the practice then inaugurated, larger than it ought to be. To prevent misunderstandings in the future and to reduce the expenses of litigants without doing injustice to the clerk, it is ordered I. That the second clause of Rule 1 be amended so that it will read as follows: The clerk shall not permit any original record or paper to be taken from the court room, or from the office, without an order from the court; but records on appeals and writs of error, exclusive of original papers sent up therewith, may be taken to a printer to be printed, under the requirements of Rule 10. II. That paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 10, be rescinded, and the following adopted in lieu thereof: 3. The clerk shall take to the printer the original record in the office, except in cases prohibited by the rules. When the Syllabus. original cannot be taken, he shall furnish the printer with a manuscript copy. He shall supervise the printing, and see that the printed copy is properly indexed. He shall take care of and distribute the printed copies to the judges, the reporter, and parties, from time to time, as required. 4. In cases where a manuscript copy of the record is not furnished the printer, the fee of the clerk for his service under the last preceding paragraph shall be one-half the rates now allowed by law for making a manuscript copy, and that shall be charged to the party bringing the cause into court, unless the court shall otherwise direct. When a manuscript copy is required to be made, full fees for a copy may be charged, but nothing in addition for the other services required. 5. In all cases the clerk shall deliver a copy of the printed record to each party without extra charge. In cases of dismissal, reversal, or affirmance, with costs, the fee allowed in the last paragraph shall be taxed against the party against whom the costs are given. In cases of dismissal for want of jurisdiction, such fees shall be taxed against the party bringing the cause into court, unless the court shall otherwise direct. JOHNSON and Another v. WATERS, Administrator. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. Decided October 16th, 1882. It appearing that a personal decree for money could not be given, and the circumstances of the parties not being shown to have changed since the security was taken, a motion for additional security on the supersedeas bond was denied. Motion for additional security on the supersedeas bond. Mr. H. B. Kelley for the motion. Mr. J. A. Campbell against. Opinion of the Court. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. This motion is denied. It does not appear from the motion papers that the decree appealed from is collectible under ordinary execution. The fair inference from the statements in the papers is, that the suit was instituted to subject the lands in dispute to the payment of a debt, and that no personal decree for money can be given against the appellants. The controversy seems to be as to the rights of the appellee in the lands. The present bond is sufficient in amount to protect him against loss pending the suit from sales for taxes if he avails himself of the remedies by redemption and subrogation which the law affords. At any rate the circumstances of the parties do not appear to have changed in this particular since the security was taken originally. CRANE IRON COMPANY v. HOAGLAND. WURTS and Others v. SAME. IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. Decided October 23d, 1882. Practice. Motions to dismiss with which are united motions to affirm, to strike out certain assignments of error, and to advance, denied when, in the absence of a printed record, the assignment of errors in defendant's brief presents questions of which the court has jurisdiction. The defendant moved to dismiss the writ of error, to affirm the decision below, to strike out assignments of error, and to advance the causes. Mr. Theodore Little for the movers. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. These are writs of error to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and the motions to dismiss are made because, as is Syllabus. claimed, no federal question is involved. The records have not been printed, and on these motions we can look only to the statements of counsel as they appear in the briefs. The assignment of errors has been printed in the brief for the defendants, and the second and fifth assignments clearly present questions of which we have jurisdiction. Whether the errors thus assigned appear in the records we cannot on these motions, as they are now presented, finally determine, but in the absence. of any showing to the contrary we will presume they do. The motions to dismiss must therefore be overruled. The questions involved are not of a character that we are inclined to consider on a motion to affirm, especially before the record is printed. It will be time enough to consider the objections to the assignment of errors when the cases come on for hearing. The motions to advance the cases cannot be granted upon the showing made. Motions denied. 108 L-ed 632 124 354 124 356 WAPLES v. HAYS. IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE Decided November 6th, 1882. Confiscation-Mortgage-Subrogation. 61. A mortgaged real estate in New Orleans to B. Proceedings being taken against it under the Confiscation Acts as the property of A, B intervened. The estate was condemned and sold to C, and the proceeds paid to B under decree of court. After the death of A, suit was brought on behalf of his heirs to recover possession of the property: Held, that C acquired the life estate of A; that the heirs of A were entitled to recover; and that neither the United States nor C was subrogated to the rights of B; also, 2. That under the practice of Louisiana, C could not, after going to trial on the petition, object that it was defective by reason of not setting forth the deed under which he claimed title. The questions presented in this case arose on the following facts: |