
    GILFILLAN, Appellant, v. SCHALLER, Respondent.
    (144 N. W. 918.)
    Costs — Appeal—Printing Briefs — Taxation of Costs — Disbursements Per Page — Statute.
    Supreme Court Rule 10 (140 N. W. xiii), adopted April ■ 1, 1913, which provided that disbursements for printing. should not exceed amount actually and necessarily expended or incurred, nor in any case exceed $.1 per -page for first 50 pages, was superseded (by Laws 1913, Ch. 168, operative July 1, 1913, iand not in. the' mind of the Court when the rule was adopted, amending Code Civ. Prom., -Sec.- 411; subd. 5, and providing that disbursements for printing briefs to conform to rules of ¡Supreme Court shall be $1 per page for 50. pages or less, and 75 cents ¡per page for each additional page; and the Supreme Court is without power to declare by its rules that disbursements for printing briefs-shall not be taxed in excess of -amount actually expended.or incurred..
    (Opinion filed January 12, 1914.)
    Ap-pea-l from- 'Circuit Court, Bead-le Co-unty. ITo-n. Alva E. Taylor, Judge.
    
      Action 'by Caroline AY. Gilfillan against -Ralph R.. Seballe-r. Erom the taxation of -costs for -printing a brief of less than 50 pages at the rate of $1 -per page, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    See, ¿ilso, 32 S. D. 638, 144 N. AY. 133.
    
      Ernest D. Ede, for Appellant.
    
      W. A. Lynch, and L. T. Hinkley, -fot" Respondent.
   SMITH, P. J.

This -case- is -before ¡us on appeal from the taxation of costs for printing briefs. The taxation was -at the 'rate of $1 per page, the brief containing less than 50 pages.

Rule io of 'this court (140 N. W.-xiii), -adopted- April 1, 1913, among other ¡things provides: “Disbursements for ¡printing under this -rule shall not -exceed' what -has been actually and- necessarily expended or incurred by the party seeking to have- the disbursements allowed, nor, in any case, exceed $1.00 per page for the first 50 pages,” et-c. At the hearing appellant ¡presented an affidavit tending to -show that respondent’s, brief and abstract were printed and paid for at the rate of 75 cents per page, and- -that the actual expenditure for printing -was $34.50, whereas the cost taxed amounted to $46. It is appellant’s contention that -the taxation at -the rate of $1 per page is contrary to the -provisions of rule 10 above referred' to.

Chapter 168, Daws of 1913, 'approved March 13, 1913, provides as follows: Sub. 5. Disbursements for printing of brief or abstract of record, when printed to conform to- the rules of the Supreme Court, shall-be $1.00 per page for 50 p-ages or less, and 75 -cents per page -for each additional .page.” It will be observed that-rule 10 was adopted April 1, 1913. -Chapter- 168, supra, contained no -emergency -clause and -did not become operative until July 1, 1913. Chapiter 5, laws of 1911, requires the Secretary of State, within- three days after the filing -oif an act with the emergenc3 clause, to furnish the Presiding Judge of this -court with a -copy thereof. 'Chapter 168, Laws of 1913, not being within the purview-of this- act, no copy was. furnished' the Presiding Judge. The act ¡was -passed and approved 18 days prior to the adoption of rule 10, but wa-s not brought -to ¡the attention of the court at .the time the rules were adopted. This act of the legislative assembly, specifically declaring the rate -at which costs for printing shall be -taxed, renders* the rule adopted' by the -court entirely void. The Legislature having declared that -disbursements, for printing shall be $1 per -page, this- court is without power to declare by its rules that disbursements therefor shall not be taxed in excess -of the amount which has been actually expended or incurred, however just and- meritorious such a rule may be.

It. follows- that costs for printing must be, allowed -and taxed at the rate -of $1 p-er page, and the taxation as made 'by the clerk under the statute is therefore affirmed.  