` i54 ssorznnn unrommu.
l hearing and decree."` This rule has been in force since September
1, 1845. _
V In Dedekam v. Vase, 3 Blatchf. C. G. 77, in 1853, in this court,
where a decree dismissing a libel in admiralty had been affirmed, it
was held by Mr. Justice Nnnsou and Judge Bnrrs, that the proctor
could not have a docket fee of $20 for each one of two terms at which
the cause was on the calendar, but could have one docket fee.
In Hayford v. Gryjfth, Id. 79, in 1853, in this court, where an ap-
‘ peal in admiralty was dismissed by the court on motion, before hear-
ing, for irregularity, it was held by Mr. Justice Nsnsou that the docket
fee was allowable, because the cause was on the calendar for hearing
and was finally disposed of. ‘
In Dcdckam v. Vasc, Id. 153, in 1853, in this court, where, after a
~ decree in admiralty had been aflirrned, there was an order by default
against stipulators, it was held by Judge Bnrrs that a docket fee
could not be charged therefor, as a Hnal hearing, because it was an
interlocutory or collateral proceeding by motion.
In Doughty v. West, Bradley d· Cary Manuf’g Co. 8 Blatchf. G. C.
107, in 1870, in this court, there was a reference to a master growing
out of a motion for an injunction before iinal hearing, and it was
held by Judge Woonuurr that a docket fee for the reference, as a trial
or final hearing, was not taxable.
In Goodyear Dental Vulcanitc Oo. v. Osgood, 2 Ban. & A. 529, in
1878, in the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts, there were,
in each of two equity cases, a bill, an answer, and a replication, and
each case was dismissed by an order or the court, on the plaintiff's
‘ motion, there having previously been an interlocutory decree in each
suit, which substantially decided the merits of the controversy; and
it was held by Judge Ssnpnnx that a docket fee of $20 was taxable in
each of the two cases. He said: _ v. »
"In the taxation of costs, • final hearing ’ is to be considered as the submis-
sion of a cause in equity for the determination of the court, so that the case
may be iinally disposed of upon bill and answer, or bill, answer and repli-
cation, or upon pleadings and proofs, or otherwise, after the case is at issue. "
In ·ThciBa-y City, 3 FED. Bur. 47, in 1880, in the trial of a suit in
admiralty in the district court for the Eastern district of Michigan,
evidence was given on both sides, and leave was granted to the libel-
ant to give further proof, the court having intimated an opinion that
he had not made out a case. He then discontinued the suit. Judge
Bnowu held that the docket fee was taxable, and was not dependent
on a judgment or decree, but was taxable on a trial or final hearing.
In Strafer v. Carr, 6 Fun. Bur. 466, in 1881, in the district court
· for the Southern district of Ohio, there were two disagreements of ju-
, ries, and then the plaintiff dismissed the case. It was held by Judge
Swine that no'docket,fee of $20 was taxable, but only a discontin-
uance fee of $5. 4 _
In Schmiedcr v. Barney, 19 Blatchf. G. C. 143, S. C. 7 FED. REP.4'