BALDIE v. BANK OF AMERICA NAT TRUST SAVINGS ASS (1950)

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

BALDIE v. BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST & SAVINGS ASS'N et al.

Civ. 14350.

Decided: May 18, 1950

Jonathan H. Rowell, Redwood City, for appellant. Frank v. Kington, Redwood City, for respondents.

Counsel have asked us to clarify the apportionment of costs on the two appeals. Under the Rules on Appeal, rule 26(a), the prevailing party is entitled to his costs. These appeals were presented on one clerk's and one report's transcript and one set of briefs. However the pleadings, evidence and arguments are separate. Respondent Pacheco is entitled to costs against appellant on his appeal and appellant is entitled to costs on the Bullock appeal. The costs should be apportioned on the basis of the portions of the transcripts and briefs devoted to each case.

NOURSE, Presiding Justice.

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Out of date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