woosrrcn v.~HsNDY. 55
451, in 1881, in this court, there were three trials. before a jury;
jirst, the plaintiff had a verdict, and the defendant obtained a new
trial; second, the defendant had a verdict, and the plaintiff obtained a
new trial; third, the defendant had a verdict. It was held by Judge
Bnucnrono that each of the three trials was a complete trial, and
that the defendant was entitled to tax three docket fees of $20 each.
In Coy v. Perkins, 13 Fan. Bar. 111, in 1882, in the circuit court
for the district of Massachusetts, there was a demurrer to a bill in
equity, and the plaintiff, without notice to the defendant, or hearing
or consideration of the case by the court, entered an order as of course,
dismissing the bill. It was held by Mr. Justice Gnu and Judge Low-
mlr. (Judge Nmnsou concurring) that the docket fee was not taxable.
Mr. Justice Gnu says, referring to sections 823 and 824: i
" We are of opinion that, upon the face of the statute, the intention of the
legislature is manifest, that it is only where some question of law or fact, in-
volved in or leading to the final disposition actually made of the case, has
been submitted, or at least presented, to the consideration of the court, that
there can be said to have been a final hearing which warrants the taxation of
a solicitor’s or proctor’s fee of $20; as, for instance, where the court, on mo-
tion and argument, dismisses for irregularity an appeal from the district
court, as in the case before Mr. Justice NELSON, of Hayjord v. Grvgyith, 3
Blatchf. C. C. 79, or where the plaintiff discontinues after the court has sub-
stantially decided the merits of the case, either in an opinion expressed at the
hearing upon the merits, as in the case of The Bay City, before Judge BROWN,
(3 FED. REP. 47,) or bya previous interlocutory decree, as in Goodyearbentol
Vulczmite Oo. v. Osgood, decided by Judge SHEPLEY in February, l878."
In Yale Lock Manufg (Jo. v. Colvin, 21 Blatchf. C. G. 168, S. C. 14
Fno. Rev. 269, in 1882, in this court, where a suit in equity-was
voluntarily discontinued by the plaintiff, without any hearing or de-
cision by the court, Judge Wnmanmn held that the docket fee was not
taxable.
` In The Alert, 15 FED. Rav. 620, in 1883, in the district court for
the Eastern district of New York, a vessel was in custody, in an ad-
miralty suit in rem, and the case was entered on the admiralty docket.
An order was afterwards made by the court dismissing the case, and
discharging the vessel from custody, on payment of costs, founded on
a consent of the libelant that the cause be discontinued on payment
of the amount claimed, and the libelant’s costs. Judge Bnnnoior
` held that, as an order of court was necessary to obtain the release of
the vessel and to cancel the libelant’s stipulations, the hearing on
the motion to that eiiect was a final hearing, and the docket fee was
taxable. · V ,
. In Htmtress v. Town of Epsom, 15 Frm. Rmx .732, in 1883, in the
circuit court for the district of New Hampshire, there was a disagree-
ment ofone jury, and afterwards a verdict by another jury. Judge
CLARK held that only one docket fee of $20 could be allowed. .
. In Goodyear v. Sawyer, 17 Fun. Bur. 2, in 1883, in the circuit court
for the Western district of Tennessee, in six suits in equity, Judge