Fred Benioff Co. v. McCulloch

Ninth Circuit

Fred Benioff Co. v. McCulloch

133 F.2d 900, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3916

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 19, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 133 F.2d 900 (Fred Benioff Co. v. McCulloch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fred Benioff Co. v. McCulloch, 133 F.2d 900, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3916 (9th Cir. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

DENMAN, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner seeks leave to file its petition for a writ of mandate ordering respondent to vacate an order for the taking of depositions of certain witnesses in New York by oral examination. The district court required, as a condition precedent to ordering the taking of the depositions by such examination, the payment by petitioner of the costs, in the amount of $1,681.14, of the travel expenses and fees of its opponent’s counsel to attend and participate in the taking of the depositions. Petitioner claims the order imposing such costs is beyond the power conferred upon the district court by Section 30(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

The question of the legality of the imposition of such costs is one which may be entertained by us on appeal if petitioner win on the merits. Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co., 265 U.S. 78, 83, 44 S.Ct. 481, 68 L.Ed. 909. If it lose on the merits its appeal on the entire case brings before us error claimed in such interlocutory orders not immediately appealable.

What the petitioner asks of us is that we prevent an appeal on this question of costs by a prior decision on the merits of its contention in a mandamus proceeding. This we have not the power to do. Such prevention of an appeal is not action in aid of our appellate jurisdiction, which is the only ground upon which the court may grant the writ of mandamus. 28 U.S.C.A. § 377, 36 Stat. 1162.

The petition is denied.

WILBUR, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.

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

DENMAN, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner seeks leave to file its petition for a writ of mandate ordering respondent to vacate an order for the taking of depositions of certain witnesses in New York by oral examination. The district court required, as a condition precedent to ordering the taking of the depositions by such examination, the payment by petitioner of the costs, in the amount of $1,681.14, of the travel expenses and fees of its opponent’s counsel to attend and participate in the taking of the depositions. Petitioner claims the order imposing such costs is beyond the power conferred upon the district court by Section 30(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

The question of the legality of the imposition of such costs is one which may be entertained by us on appeal if petitioner win on the merits. Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co., 265 U.S. 78, 83, 44 S.Ct. 481, 68 L.Ed. 909. If it lose on the merits its appeal on the entire case brings before us error claimed in such interlocutory orders not immediately appealable.

What the petitioner asks of us is that we prevent an appeal on this question of costs by a prior decision on the merits of its contention in a mandamus proceeding. This we have not the power to do. Such prevention of an appeal is not action in aid of our appellate jurisdiction, which is the only ground upon which the court may grant the writ of mandamus. 28 U.S.C.A. § 377, 36 Stat. 1162.

The petition is denied.

WILBUR, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 F.2d 900, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fred-benioff-co-v-mcculloch-ca9-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack