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.
Cecil R. COTTON, dba Cotton Construction Company, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. IMPERIAL VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST., a political subdivision of te State of California, et al., Defendants and Respondents.
In this action the plaintiff and appellant sought recovery of a balance alleged to be due upon a construction contract. On May 26, 1959, the Superior Court made an order by which this action was consolidated with cause No. 6904 in this court and with two other actions likewise pending herein. This order provided for the appointment of a referee and further provided that each party advance one-half the costs and the amount so advanced should be recovered as costs by the prevailing party. In each of the four cases the appellant recovered a substantial amount. In this action the recovery was $2,550.00, with interest at the statutory rate from February 22, 1957. The original amount found due was the sum of $7,962.89, but this amount was reduced by reason of subsequent payments.
However, the court refused to award judgment for costs and provided in the judgment that each person should pay his own costs of suit. By the provisions of section 1032 Code Civ.Proc., plaintiff and appellant was entitled to costs as a matter of right. The facts and the law involved in the four cases are more fully set forth in the opinion in General Electric Co. v. Imperial Union School Dist., cause No. 6904, 28 Cal.Rptr. 438, and it would serve no useful purpose to reiterate them here.
It is ordered that that portion of the judgment referring to costs is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to amend the judgment by providing that plaintiff recover costs.
The portion of the judgment from which this appeal is perfected is reversed and modified with instructions.
Appellant to recover costs on appeal.
MONROE, Justice pro tem.
GRIFFIN, P. J., and COUGHLIN, J. concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: Civ. 6905.
Decided: February 11, 1963
Court: District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 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)