
    BALL vs. DUNCAN.
    There is no statute authorizing the Olerk to claim a fee of one dollor in advance for entering a case upon the motion docket. And it was not competent for the Judges in convention to enact such a rule.
    Motion, in Randolph Superior Court. Decided by Judge Perkins, at May Term, 1860.
    James E. Duncan, by his counsel, proposed to enter a motion to establish a lost ji. fa. on the motion docket of the Court below. The Clerk objected to entering the case until he was paid the sum of one dollar, claiming that he was entitled to that sum under the rule of the Court. The Court, on motion, compelled the Clerk to enter the case, deciding that he was not entitled to anything for entering that or any other case on the motion docket, and could not exact the payment of one dollar from the party applying to have the case docketed.
    The Clerk (M. Ball) excepted to this ruling, and'now assigns it as error.
    Hood, representing G. S. & C. Robinson, for plaintiff in error.
    Douglass & Douglass, contra.
    
   By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

If the Clerk is not entitled to the fee claimed by statute, and we know of none, it is clear that it was not competent for the Judges in convention, to enact such a fee. Be this, however, as it may, the fee, if due, is, in the language of the law, “Court cost;” none of which can be claimed till the end of the case. This fee is exacted in advance of the service to be rendered.  