IN RE: RINDGE'S ESTATE. (1934)

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

IN RE: RINDGE'S ESTATE. MERRILL et al. v. CAVAGNARO.

Civ. 9136.

Decided: June 29, 1934

Treadwell, Van Fleet & Laughlin, of San Francisco, for appellants. Sullivan, Roche, Johnson & Barry, of San Francisco, for respondent.

Motion for order recalling and correcting remittitur so as to include costs on appeal. The motion is based upon the contention that the judgment entered herein modified the judgment appealed from but contained no directions as to costs on appeal, and the clerk omitted to enter upon the record and insert in the remittitur a judgment that appellant recover costs.

The judgment appealed from was not reversed or modified but simply contained a direction that upon final distribution the amount paid by the executor on account of inheritance taxes should be charged against the shares of the legatees on which the taxes were based. The direction is in no sense a reversal or modification and was not intended to be so understood. Respondent therefore is entitled to costs.

The motion is denied.

TYLER, Presiding Justice.

We concur: KNIGHT, J.; CASHIN, J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network