City of Los Angeles v. Griffith Abbott

California Court of Appeal

City of Los Angeles v. Griffith Abbott

114 Cal. App. 756

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 18, 1931

DocketCiv. No. 7355

StatusPublished

This text of 114 Cal. App. 756 (City of Los Angeles v. Griffith Abbott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Los Angeles v. Griffith Abbott, 114 Cal. App. 756 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

This is an appeal from an order denying plaintiff’s motion to tax costs and with two minor exceptions the facts appearing from the transcript are the same as those in City of Los Angeles, Plaintiff, v. Sadie D. Griffith Abbott, Julia Fanta, etc., et al., Respondents (No. 7369), ante, p. 180 [299 Pac. 807], this day decided. The two exceptions are: (1) The motion to tax costs was based upon three grounds only, the fourth ground, that of attorneys’ fees being excessive, being omitted in the instant cause, and (2) the motion was not supported by an affidavit such as is found in the Fanta case, supra. The points of [757]*757law urged by the appellant, however, are identical and this appeal is determined by the opinion therein.

Order affirmed.

Works, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

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

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

This is an appeal from an order denying plaintiff’s motion to tax costs and with two minor exceptions the facts appearing from the transcript are the same as those in City of Los Angeles, Plaintiff, v. Sadie D. Griffith Abbott, Julia Fanta, etc., et al., Respondents (No. 7369), ante, p. 180 [299 Pac. 807], this day decided. The two exceptions are: (1) The motion to tax costs was based upon three grounds only, the fourth ground, that of attorneys’ fees being excessive, being omitted in the instant cause, and (2) the motion was not supported by an affidavit such as is found in the Fanta case, supra. The points of [757]*757law urged by the appellant, however, are identical and this appeal is determined by the opinion therein.

Order affirmed.

Works, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 Cal. App. 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-los-angeles-v-griffith-abbott-calctapp-1931.