Gird v. California Oil Co.

60 F. 1011, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2773
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California·Decided April 2, 1894·No. No. 302·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

BOSS, District Judge.

There is in this circuit no rule of court requiring briefs to be printed, nor was there any special order to that effect made in the case. And, as neither the statutes nor the rules in equity adopted by the supreme court require it to be done, the brief in question must be taken to have been voluntarily printed by the defendant. Under such circumstances, the prevailing party cannot recover of the losing one the costs of such printing. Neff v. Pennoyer, 3 Sawy. 336, Fed. Cas. No. 10,084; Hussey v. Bradley, 5 Blatchf. 212, Fed. Cas. No. 6,946; Dennis v. Eddy, 12 Blatchf. 198, Fed. Cas. No. 3,793; Ferguson v. Dent, 46 Fed. 93. The item in question must, therefore, be disallowed. Bo ordered.

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

Gird v. California Oil Co., 60 F. 1011, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2773 (circtsdca 1894).

60 F. 1011 (Gird v. California Oil Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The Daniel Kern
29 F.2d 288 (W.D. Washington, 1928)
Kelly v. Springfield Ry. Co.
83 F. 183 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio, 1897)