
    Andrew C. Maxwell v. The Bay City Bridge Company.
    
      Taxation of costs — Map.
    
      An affidavit stating generally that the items of disbursements given in a bill of costs were “necessary to the proper preparation of this case for hearing ” is not specific enough to support the taxation of the expense of drawing and engraving a map that had been returned in the bill of exceptions and printed in the record.
    Appeal from taxation of costs. In taxing costs, the. Clerk of the Supreme Court allowed the following items:
    “ To paid to engineer for preparing draft of map in bill of exceptions......................... $12 00
    “To paid for wood-cut in bill of exceptions____ 15 00
    The engraving appears in the report of Maxwell v. Bay City Bridge Go., 41 Mich., 458.- The affidavit for the taxation of costs stated that the bill of. costs was correct and that the items of disbursements were “necessary to the proper preparation of this case for hearing.” The appeal was from the allowance of the items above set forth!
    Submitted Oct. 28.
    Decided Oct. 29.
    
      Holmes, Collins & Stoddard and Chaney for the appeal.
    Costs are statutory and cannot be made to embrace unauthorized expenses : they are refused for such expenses as for printing briefs (Bowditch Ins. Co. v. Winslow, 3 Gray, 433), obtaining exemplifications or copies of judgments or other documents used- on the trial (Den v. Johnson, 1 Green [N. J.], 156), or of papers necessary to establish plaintiff’s title in ejectment (Murphy v. Loyd, 3 Whart., 356), surveyor’s fees (Anonymous, Spencer, 112; Low v. Vrooman, 15 Johns., 238) compensation to artists or surveyors, (Caldwell v. Miller, 46 Penn. St., 235) printing testimony (Spaulding v. Tucker, 2 Sawyer, 50), or obtaining a transcript of the stenographer’s minutes for the use of counsel in settling a bill of exceptions, Hayes v. Livingston, 35 Mich., 371. The costs provided for by rule are the clerk’s fees (Sup. Ct. Rule 52), counsel fee (Rule 48) and necessary expenses for printing case and points, Eule 33.
    
      A. C. Maxiuell in person against.
   The Court

held that the affidavit for the taxation of costs was not sufficiently specific to support the items objected to, under Comp. L., § 7425, which provides that “when there shall be charges in a bill of costs for the attendance of any witness, or for copies or exemplifications of documents or papers, or for any other disbursements, except to officers for services rendered, *■ * such charges for copies shall not be taxed without an affidavit that such copies * * were necessarily obtained for use; nor shall such disbursements be-allowed without an affidavit specifying the items thereof particularly, nor unless they appear to have been necessary and reasonable in amount.”

Eetaxation was accordingly ordered.  