Beilby v. Superior Court

70 P. 1024, 138 Cal. 51, 1902 Cal. LEXIS 446
California Supreme Court·Decided December 10, 1902·No. S.F. No. 3413.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Petition for certiorari, presenting the following case: Petitioner was plaintiff in an action appealed from justice's court to superior court. Upon a trial de novo there was a verdict for defendant. More than five days after the verdict, but within an extension of time granted by the trial judge, the defendant filed his cost-bill, the amount of which was included in his judgment. Petitioner claims that the judgment is to that extent void, because the trial judge *Page 52 had no power to extend the time for filing the cost-bill, and that, being too late, costs were waived.

We think, however, that the service and filing of a cost-bill is fairly within a proper construction of section 1054 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizing extensions of time. It is substantially "a notice other than of appeal."

Writ denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Beilby v. Superior Court, 70 P. 1024, 138 Cal. 51, 1902 Cal. LEXIS 446 (Cal. 1902).

70 P. 1024 (Beilby v. Superior Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Soda v. Marriott
20 P.2d 758 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Coast Electric Service, Inc. v. Jensen
295 P. 346 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
Smith v. Alford
88 P. 16 (Utah Supreme Court, 1906)