COURTS: SUPERIOR COURT CLERK'S FILING FEES.
1. It was the intention of the legislature to group transcripts of judgment and abstracts of judgment.
2. Law library and official reporters' costs are still taxable.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
May 29, 1951
Honorable Howard V. Doherty
108 Morse Building
Port Angeles, Washington Cite as: AGO 51-53 No. 55
On May 21, 1951, you asked the following questions:
1. Was it the intention of the legislature in passing section 5, chapter 51, Laws of 1951, to group transcripts of judgments and abstracts of judgments, and
2. Are law library and official reporters' costs still taxable?
You are advised:
1. It was the intention of the legislature to group transcripts of judgments and abstracts of judgments.
2. Law libraries and official reporters' costs are still taxable.
Section 5, chapter 51, Laws of 1951, is an amendment of 36.18.020, RCW [[RCW 36.18.020]], which was a codification of that portion of section 1, chapter 56, Laws of 1907, which related to fees to be collected by clerks of the superior courts and was also codified as section 497, Rem. Rev. Stat. In the 1907 law the provision read:
[[Orig. Op. Page 2]]
"For filing an abstract of a judgment entered in the supreme court or of any other superior court of the state or of any United States court held in this state, or a transcript of a judgment of a justice court, a fee of $1."
In the 1951 amendment the provision read:
"For filing the transcript of a judgment from any United States court held in this state, or from the superior court of another county or from a justice court, the clerk shall collect three dollars;"
It is to be noted that the word "abstract" in the original law has now been changed to "transcript." We cannot regard such change of terminology as being of any material importance. We now hold that the above quotation from the 1951 statute was intended to take the place of and to supersede the above quotation from the 1907 statute, and that clerks of superior courts should now collect a $3.00 fee for all filings indicated by the above quotation.
You also ask: "Are the law library and stenographer's costs taxable?"
We have held that both our law library statute and the court reporter statute are still in effect. See opinion to the prosecuting attorney of Lewis county, dated May 23, 1951, which we enclose.
Very truly yours,
Assistant Attorney General