Hawley

People v. Hawley

Good Law
119 Cal. App. 548·6 P.2d 976
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 8, 1932Docket Nos. 6977, 6978, 6979.California1,079 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bishop, J.

In each of the above-entitled actions a motion to strike the cost bill of the Los Angeles Bock & Gravel Company was made and denied. From the order (called “judgment”) denying the motions to strike in each of these cases appeals were taken. By stipulation in this court, the three appeals were consolidated for hearing; “based upon the fact”, the stipulation recites, “that the appeals taken in said causes all involved the same point”.

Each of the motions made in the court below was noticed “upon the grounds that said Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements was not filed and served, as required by section 1033 of the Code of Civil Procedure”. An affidavit by one of appellant’s counsel was filed with the notice and in support of each motion, reciting that at the time of the service of the memorandum (a copy being received) the original had as yet not been filed. No other fact was set forth. A memorandum of points and authorities accompanied the notice of motion, and the only rule of law which it suggested had been violated, was that a cost bill must be first delivered and then served. There is, therefore, nothing in the record to justify the statement in appellant’s opening brief that…

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.