Brigham v. Swift

California Supreme Court

Brigham v. Swift

1 Cal. Unrep. 31

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 22, 1856

DocketNo. 1074

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 31 (Brigham v. Swift) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brigham v. Swift, 1 Cal. Unrep. 31 (Cal. 1856).

Pincite

Opinion

MURRAY, C. J.

— This is an appeal from an order refusing a motion to retax costs. The cost bill was filed on the 10th of February, 1855, and the motion to relax was made on the 22d of February, 1856. By a rule of the court below the party is allowed ten days from the filing of the bill in which to move to retax. The motion in this case was neither made [32]*32in ten days, nor a year and ten days, and when made the court had lost all jurisdiction over the subject. The error, if any, should have been corrected by appeal before the expiration of the time allowed by law for bringing cases before us. This cannot now be done by an appeal from an order of the court below involving the same subject matter.

Judgment affirmed.

I concur: Terry, J.

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

MURRAY, C. J.

— This is an appeal from an order refusing a motion to retax costs. The cost bill was filed on the 10th of February, 1855, and the motion to relax was made on the 22d of February, 1856. By a rule of the court below the party is allowed ten days from the filing of the bill in which to move to retax. The motion in this case was neither made [32]*32in ten days, nor a year and ten days, and when made the court had lost all jurisdiction over the subject. The error, if any, should have been corrected by appeal before the expiration of the time allowed by law for bringing cases before us. This cannot now be done by an appeal from an order of the court below involving the same subject matter.

Judgment affirmed.

I concur: Terry, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brigham-v-swift-cal-1856.