Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
BROY v. CALAVERAS CENTRAL GOLD MINING CO., Limited, et al.
Respondent has made a motion to recall the remittitur heretofore issued in the above–entitled cause and to strike therefrom the portion which assesses costs against respondent. Said motion was made upon the ground that the judgment of the trial court “was ordered modified by this court” and that “no order was made in this court in its opinion rendered in said action that the appellants should recover their costs.”
The opinion in the above–entitled cause (Broy v. Calaveras Central Gold Mining Co., (Cal.App.) 64 P.(2d) 456, 460, concluded as follows: “It follows that the judgment should be reversed, that the findings should be reframed not inconsistent with what we have said, and that a judgment in favor of all of the defendants, should be entered theron. It is so ordered.” Pursuant to the provisions of rule XXIII of the Rules of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal, the clerk of this court inserted in the remittitur a judgment that appellants recover their costs of appeal.
In our opinion, respondent's motion must be denied. The appeal resulted in a reversal with directions and appellants were the prevailing parties and were entitled to their costs. Said appeal did not result in a modification of the judgment and no proceedings were had pursuant to the provisions of section 956a of the Code of Civil Procedure as claimed by respondent. Hence the cause did not fall within the exceptions set forth in section 1034 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended by St.1933, p. 1902), and the matter of costs was not within the discretion of this court.
The motion is denied.
SPENCE, Justice.
We concur: NOURSE, P. J.; STURTEVANT, J.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Civ. 10148.
Decided: August 03, 1937
Court: District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)