
    Perkins vs. Davis. Same vs. Same. Channing vs. Davis.
    This court will not review an irregular or excessive taxation of costs, unless the matters complained of were brought to the attention of the court below, and for the purpose of reviewing the decision a bill of exceptions is necessary, showing what oocurred before the court and taxing officer, the items objected to, and what decision was made thereon.
    Notice of taxation of costs must be given, R. S., chap. 133, § 44, and“if not given the taxation may be set aside for irregularity.
    These three cases come up by appeal from the circuit court for Milwaukee county. The actions were brought to foreclose mortgages, executed by Davis fy Moore and their wives to the respondents. The judgments are in the usual form of judgments of foreclosure, providing for the payment of the amount of the costs “ adjudged to the plaintiff,” and among the costs so adjudged, are the clerk’s foes, and which in the two Perkins suits amount to $12.35 in each case,' and in the Channing case to $12.25.
    
      Finches, Lynde & Miller, for appellants.
    
      Thos. L. Ogden, for respondents.
   By the Court,

Dixon, C. J.

Cord vs. Southwell, 15 Wis., 211 and Hitchcock vs. Merrick, 15 Wis., 522, are decisive of these appeals. They are from final judgments, and the only question is upon the taxation of the clerk’s costs. The costs exceed the limit fixed by statute, and the taxation is said to have been without notice. It was irregular in both respects; but as the defendant did not move in the court below to set asided the taxation and bring the cases here upon proper exceptions, the judgments must be affirmed.

Ordered accordingly.  