Esmond v. Chew

California Supreme Court

Esmond v. Chew

17 Cal. 336

California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1861·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. concurring.

This is an action for damages, and for an injunction. The plaintiffs recovered less than two hundred dollars, and the question is whether they are entitled to costs. This, we think, is one of the cases in which the allowance of costs is in the discretion of the Court. (Practice Act, sec. 495, 498.) They were refused by the Court below, and we cannot interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. concurring.

This is an action for damages, and for an injunction. The plaintiffs recovered less than two hundred dollars, and the question is whether they are entitled to costs. This, we think, is one of the cases in which the allowance of costs is in the discretion of the Court. (Practice Act, sec. 495, 498.) They were refused by the Court below, and we cannot interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Esmond v. Chew, 17 Cal. 336 (Cal. 1861).

Pincite

17 Cal. 336 (Esmond v. Chew) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related