City of Los Angeles v. Griffith Abbott

114 Cal. App. 756
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in City of Los Angeles v. Griffith Abbott. Read the opinion of the Court — 114 Cal. App. 180
California Court of Appeal·Decided May 18, 1931·No. Civ. No. 7355·Published

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

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

114 Cal. App. 756 (City of Los Angeles v. Griffith Abbott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.