
    Feske, Special Administrator, Respondent, vs. Adam, Appellant.
    
      April 15
    
    June 20, 1907.
    
    
      Appealable order: Taxation of costs: Review on appeal from judgment: Bill of exceptions.
    
    1. An order retaxing costs is not appealable, but is reviewable only on appeal from the judgment.
    2. For the purpose of reviewing the taxation of costs a bill of exceptions is necessary, showing what occurred before the court and taxing officer, the items objected tó, and what decision was made thereon.
    Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for-Polk county: A. J. Viatje, Circuit Judge.-
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Action in ejectment. The action was dismissed with costs on motion of counsel for the defendant. There was a contest before the clerk on the taxation of costs, the result being carried before the court for review, where a decision was rendered adverse to the appellant and the costs as so taxed were inserted in the judgment. This appeal was taken solely for the purpose of having such decision reviewed. There is no bill of exceptions. The appeal is from the order retaxing the costs as well as from the judgment.
    The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of 
      Frank B. Dorothy, and for the respondent on a brief signed by Kennedy & Tates.
    
   Maeshall, J.

The order retaxing the costs is not appeal-able. That is ruled by many decisions under the present appeal statute, upon the ground that it did not prevent a judgment from which an appeal might 'be taken; but independently thereof it would not be appealable because a re-taxation of costs is not a special proceeding nor a summary application after judgment, nor a matter involving the merits. Ernst v. Steamer Brooklyn, 24 Wis. 616. Such an order is only reviewable on appeal from the judgment.

The point is made that there being no bill of exceptions neither the proceedings before the clerk nor those before the court are a part of the record and so are not reviewable upon appeal from the judgment. That must be decided in respondent’s favor under the doctrine of Cord v. Southwell, 15 Wis. 211; Perkins v. Davis, 16 Wis. 470; Hoey v. Pierron, 67 Wis. 262, 268, 30 N. W. 692; State v. Wertzel, 84 Wis. 344, 347, 54 N. W. 579; Lauterbach v. Netzo, 111 Wis. 322, 87 N. W. 230; and other cases. The rule is thus stated in the headnote to Perkins v. Davis, supra: for the purpose of reviewing an erroneous taxation of costs “a bill of exceptions is necessary, showing what occurred before the court and taxing officer, the items objected to, and what decision was made thereon.”

By the Court. — The judgment is affirmed.  