gno.law

Beilby v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court · S.F. No. 3413. · 1902-12-10 · Published · 70 P. 1024 · 138 Cal. 51 · 1902 Cal. LEXIS 446

F.N. Beilby v. Superior Court of Santa Cruz County

Area
civil
Panel
The Court (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

Petition for certiorari, presenting the following case: Petitioner was plaintiff in an action appealed from justice's court to superior court. Upon a trial de novo there was a verdict for defendant. More than five days after the verdict, but within an extension of time granted by the trial judge, the defendant filed his cost-bill, the amount of which was included in his judgment. Petitioner claims that the judgment is to that extent void, because the trial judge *Page 52 had no power to extend the time for filing the cost-bill, and that, being too late, costs were waived.

We think, however, that the service and filing of a cost-bill is fairly within a proper construction of section 1054 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizing extensions of time. It is substantially "a notice other than of appeal."

Writ denied.

Cited by