Legal Opinion

F. A. Hihn Co. v. City of Santa Cruz

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 22, 1914No. Civ. No. 1182PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtLennon, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order of the lower court whereby the defendants’ motion to strike out plaintiff’s bill of costs was granted, and the plaintiff’s motion to strike out defendants’ bill of costs was denied.

The action out of which the claimed costs arose was one to quiet plaintiff’s title to certain land in the city of Santa Cruz. The motion to strike out plaintiff’s bill of costs was made and granted solely upon the ground “that the plaintiff did not recover judgment in said action, and that the defendants recovered judgment in said action for all of the land to which said defendants…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hoyt v. HartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Sierra Union Water & Mining Co. v. WolffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Schmidt v. KlotzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Tom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. United Eastern Mining Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Peake v. HarrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  3. Stimson Canal & Irrigation v. Lemoore Canal & Irrigation Co.California Court of Appeal · 1916
  4. Silva v. AngeloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API