In re Peterson

Brief Fact Summary.

The district court appointed an auditor. Peterson petitioned for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the appointment of the auditor, and to the extent the court ordered that the auditor’s expenses would be treated as costs. He also claimed that the appointment of the auditor violated his Seventh Amendment jury trial right.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Generally, courts have the inherent authority to provide themselves with implements and tools necessary to perform their duties.

Facts.

The district court appointed an auditor to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine amounts due for sold and delivered coal. The order appointing the auditor stated that it was not a final determination, but did not specify what use the auditor’s report would have at trial. Peterson petitioned for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the district court’s appointment of the auditor, and to have the auditor’s expenses treated as costs. He also claimed that the appointment of the auditor violated his Seventh Amendment jury trial right.

Issue.

1. Did the district court have the authority to order the appointment of the auditor?
2. Did the district court properly include the auditor’s fees and expenses as costs?

Held.

1. Yes, the district court had the authority to order the appointment of the auditor.
2. Yes, the district court properly included the auditor’s fees and expenses as costs.

Discussion.

Courts have inherent authority to provide themselves with tools necessary to perform their duties, and there is no Seventh Amendment prohibition against their doing so. Also, absent a contrary statute or rule, there is no prohibition against taxing the auditor’s fees and expenses as costs.