of this appeal.” Id. at 406. Although the panel did not offer any analysis regarding the letter of credit issue, we do not find the holding to be mere obiter dictum where the issue was raised on appeal. 3. OTHER JURISDICTIONS A split of authority exists among other jurisdictions regarding taxation of costs for a letter of credit obtained as security or collateral for an appeal or stay bond. See 5 Am Jur 2d, Appellate Review, § 922, pp 565-566; 20 Am Jur 2d, Costs, § 76, pp 67-69. For the most part, the issue is governed by the applicable statute or court rule and by the particular circumstances of the case. In federal courts, the district courts are afforded discret w such costs. See, e.g., Golf West of Kentucky, Inc v Life Investors, Inc, 178 Cal App 3d 313; 223 Cal Rptr 539 (1986) (<HOLDING>); AgMax, Inc v Countrymark Cooperative, Inc,
holding that the letter of credit was substantially equivalent to posting a supersedeas bond and the 100 cost was reasonable and probably less than the premium of a surety bond holding that the defendants were entitled to recover as costs not only bond premiums but the additional cost to obtain a letter of credit that was required by the surety as collateral before the issuance of bond holding that taxable costs included only the premium on a surety bond posted on appeal not the fees paid for letters of credit to secure the bond where the state statute and court rule only specifically allowed for premium on any surety bond holding that a performance bond surety was allowed to sue the government based on the doctrine of equitable subrogation holding that surety was liable to subcontractor on payment bond because payment bond applied to any claimant who among other things supplied materials that were reasonably required for use in the performance of the subcontract 