is that each party separately and properly represented Rooms before this Court is entitled to the taxation of his bill of costs. Whether, under the circumstances, there should have et al.
been given only one set of costs was a question for the Rinfret j. court, when pronouncing its judgment, and is not a ques- tion for the taxing officer, who has only to give effect to the order upon costs, as adjudicated by the court. The point now raised by the appellant should have been taken, if at all, by speaking to the minutes of judgment.
I find no ground for interfering with the taxation made by the Registrar, and I therefore dismiss the application by way of appeal, with costs. However, on the present application, as all the respondents were represented by one counsel, there will be only one set of costs to them. LOUISE R. KRAUSE (PLAINTIFF)..............
APPELLANT; *Feb. 24.
*Mar. 24.
AND
FRANK J. YORK (DEFENDANT) .................. RESPONDENT. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Res judicata-Claims in present action all before court in former action though not claimed directly as specific relief-Agreement for sale of land-Action by vendor for cancellation and possession; counterclaim by purchaser for return of payments-Subsequent action by vendor for damages for loss on re-sale and sums paid for repairs and taxes.
A vendor of land sued for cancellation of the agreement for sale, and for possession, alleging the purchaser's default in payment of interest and taxes; and recovered judgment for possession and a declaration that the agreement had become null and void. The purchaser counterclaimed for repayment of all amounts paid by him and, by the judgment, recovered all amounts in excess of the first payment. The vendor subsequently brought the present action, claiming damages for loss on a re-sale of the land, and sums expended by him in repairs and for taxes.
Held: While, in the first action, the claims now made were not all claimed directly as specific relief to whioh the vendor would be entitled upon cancellation of the agreement, yet they were all urged as separate reasons why the amount recovered by the purchaser should not be returned to him.
The claims now made were thus all before the court in the first action; and therefore could not be made the subject of another action.
Duff, Rinfret, Lamont, Smith and Cannon JJ.