Dixon v. Pluns

California Supreme Court

Dixon v. Pluns

35 P. 1047, 4 Cal. Unrep. 502, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1180

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 2, 1894

DocketNo. 14,429

StatusPublished

This text of 35 P. 1047 (Dixon v. Pluns) 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

Dixon v. Pluns, 35 P. 1047, 4 Cal. Unrep. 502, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1180 (Cal. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeal in this case was taken from the judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial. After the case was submitted for decision, the court ordered the submission set aside as to the appeal from the judgment, and continued the hearing thereon until the further order of the court. The appeal from the order denying a motion for a new trial was successful, and that order was reversed, with certain directions to the trial court. The remittitur issued upon the judgment of reversal allowed costs of appeal to appellant. A motion is now made to recall the remittitur and amend or modify the same by striking out that portion giving appellant his costs on appeal. The motion is denied. The order denying the motion for a new trial being reversed, the appellant is entitled to his costs on appeal under rule 23 of this court.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appeal in this case was taken from the judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial. After the case was submitted for decision, the court ordered the submission set aside as to the appeal from the judgment, and continued the hearing thereon until the further order of the court. The appeal from the order denying a motion for a new trial was successful, and that order was reversed, with certain directions to the trial court. The remittitur issued upon the judgment of reversal allowed costs of appeal to appellant. A motion is now made to recall the remittitur and amend or modify the same by striking out that portion giving appellant his costs on appeal. The motion is denied. The order denying the motion for a new trial being reversed, the appellant is entitled to his costs on appeal under rule 23 of this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 P. 1047, 4 Cal. Unrep. 502, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-pluns-cal-1894.