Monson v. Fischer

26 P.2d 6, 219 Cal. 290, 1933 Cal. LEXIS 389
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 27, 1933
DocketDocket No. S.F. 14889.
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 26 P.2d 6 (Monson v. Fischer) 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
Monson v. Fischer, 26 P.2d 6, 219 Cal. 290, 1933 Cal. LEXIS 389 (Cal. 1933).

Opinion

PRESTON, J.

This is an appeal from so much of an order taxing costs on appeal as allows to defendant an item of $116 incurred by her as costs on trial of the action in the court below.

The trial on its merits resulted in judgment for plaintiffs, which was reversed on appeal (Monson v. Fischer, 118 Cal. App. 503 [5 Pac. (2d) 628]). Under section 1034 of the Code of Civil Procedure and within the time allowed, defendant filed a memorandum covering her costs on appeal and included therein the aforesaid item. Plaintiffs moved to retax said costs by striking from the bill said item. This motion was denied and plaintiffs thereupon appealed- from so much of the order as included the item.

This item could properly be allowed only after a final judgment for defendant in the trial court (sec. 1024, Code Civ. Proc.); it was no part of her costs on appeal. The reversal of the judgment sets the case completely at large except as restricted by the opinion of the appellate court (Central Sav. Bank v. Lake, 201 Cal. 438, 443 [257 Pac. 521] ; Estate of Pusey, 177 Cal. 370, 371 [170 Pac. 846]). An order taxing costs on appeal is a special order made after final judgment within the meaning of section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is appealable (Markart v. Zeimer, 74 Cal. App. 152 [239 Pac. 856]).

*292 The order taxing costs of appeal in this action is therefore modified by striking therefrom said item of $116 and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, appellants to recover their costs on this appeal.

Langdon, J., Curtis, J., Thompson, J., Seawell, J., and Waste, C. J., concurred.

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

Related

Kaur v. Pabla CA5
California Court of Appeal, 2024
Williams v. Safire CA1/5
California Court of Appeal, 2013
Krikorian Premiere Theatres, LLC v. Westminster Central, LLC
193 Cal. App. 4th 1075 (California Court of Appeal, 2011)
Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency
98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 334 (California Court of Appeal, 2000)
City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando
537 P.2d 1251 (California Supreme Court, 1975)
People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Lagiss
223 Cal. App. 2d 23 (California Court of Appeal, 1963)
Muller v. Reagh
338 P.2d 601 (California Court of Appeal, 1959)
Weightman v. Hadley
292 P.2d 909 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)
Odlum v. Duffy
219 P.2d 785 (California Supreme Court, 1950)
Rosenfield v. Vosper
134 P.2d 529 (California Court of Appeal, 1943)
Clayton v. Schultz
115 P.2d 446 (California Supreme Court, 1941)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway v. Superior Court
86 P.2d 85 (California Supreme Court, 1939)
Kellogg v. Honcutt Gold M. Co., Ltd.
76 P.2d 551 (California Court of Appeal, 1938)
Erlin v. National Union Fire Insurance
61 P.2d 756 (California Supreme Court, 1936)
Rinaldo v. Superior Court
59 P.2d 868 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
Noack v. Zellerbach
57 P.2d 1390 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
Heinfelt v. Arth
41 P.2d 191 (California Court of Appeal, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 P.2d 6, 219 Cal. 290, 1933 Cal. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monson-v-fischer-cal-1933.