Levinson

Levinson v. Silverman

Good Law
110 Cal. App. 467·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 41·294 P. 434
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 16, 1930Docket No. 7710.California786 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order refusing to tax costs, and also from an order refusing to strike out a cost bill. Heretofore this plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant to recover the balance of the purchase price of certain Russian rubles. Thereafter judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant made a motion for a new trial. His motion was denied and he took an appeal. Later when he presented his bill of exceptions for settlement the plaintiff objected to the settlement and the objection was sustained. Thereupon the defendant filed in the Supreme Court an original application for a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge to settle and certify the bill of exceptions. (Silverman v. Thompson, 196 Cal. 585 [ 238 Pac. 684 ].) The writ was granted. Although the judgment granting the writ said nothing about costs, under the provisions of section 1095 of the Code of Civil Procedure the last-mentioned judgment carried costs. Nevertheless, the prevailing party did not in the mandamus proceeding file a cost bill. If he wanted costs he should have done so. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1033, and 1110.) The judgment in the main action was reversed.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.