
    HOLLIDAY-KLOTZ LAND & LUMBER COMPANY, Respondent, v. T. J. MOSS TIE COMPANY, Appellant.
    St. Louis Court of Appeals,
    August 6, 1902.
    Practice, Trial: PRACTICE, APPELLATE: MOTION POR NEW TRIAL: SAVING EXCEPTIONS. Piling a motion for a new trial and excepting to the order overruling it does not dispense with the necessity of saving exceptions to previous rulings whose propriety is questioned.
    Appeal from Wayne Circuit Court. — Ho». Frank R. Bearing, Judge.
    Appirmed.
    
      Smith & Anthony for appellant.
    (1) The taxing up of the costs, sought to he re-taxed in the proceeding, was done under the law by the clerk, and is to be regarded as being prima facie ■correct, except as to costs taxed in his own favor. Hazeltine v. Railroad, 39 Mo. App. 440; Tittman v. Thornton, 53 Mo. App. 515. (2) The costs asked to be retaxed were such' costs as was the duty of the ■clerk, acting ministerially in the first instance, to tax after judgment rendered, and which constituted no component part of the judgment, because not required to be adjudged by the court. Berberet v. Berberet, 136 Mo. 672; Mann v. Warner, 22 Mo. App. 580; Turner v. Butler, 66 Mo. App. 385. (3) Amendments after issue joined, as in the case at bar, should be made with costs.. Civil Code, Chap. 8, art. 6; Tower v. Pauley, 67 Mo. 635; Street v. Bushnell, 24 Mo. 328.
    
      James F. Green for respondent.
    (1) This being an action ex delicto, and the plaintiff having recovered judgment, was entitled to costs. Sec. 1552, R. S. 1899; Vineyard v. Lynch, 86 Mo. 484; Haseltine v. Railroad, 39 Mo. App. 440; Hoover v. Railroad, 115 Mo. 77; Sec. 1547, R. S. 1899; Hecht v. Heiman, 81 Mo. App. 370; Bybee v. Irons, 33 Mo. App. 659. (2) No objection was made to the filing of the amended petition, nor did defendant request that terms be imposed at the time it was filed.’ It is, therefore, too late to raise the question by motion to retax costs. Sec. 657, R. S. 1899; Mann v. Warner, 22 Mo. App. 577; Riddle v. Aiken, 29 Mo. 453.
   GOODE, J.

This appeal was taken from the judgment of the court below on a motion filed by the appellant to retax costs. Evidence was introduced and declarations' of law requested at the hearing of said motion, as appears from the bill of exceptions which is presented in full. But it does not appear that any objection was made or exception taken to the court’s rulings on the requests for declarations or an exception saved to the judgment on the motion to retax costs, so there is nothing to review. St. Louis v. Brooks, 107 Mo. 380; Watson v. Race, 46 Mo. App. (K. C.) 546. Filing a motion for a new trial and excepting to the order overruling it does not dispense with the necessity of saving exceptions to previous rulings whose propriety is questioned. American Wine Co. v. Scholer, 13 Mo. App. (St. L.) 345.

The judgment is affirmed.

Bland, P. J., and Barclay, J., concur.  