Legal Opinion

Lasky v. Davis

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1867PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiff recovered judgment, and filed his hill of costs. The defendant moved to retax the same hy striking out several of the items. The Court made an order sustaining the motion. The judgment was entered December 27tli, 1866. The plaintiff’s bill of costs was filed on the same day.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiff recovered judgment, and filed his hill of costs. The defendant moved to retax the same hy striking out several of the items. The Court made an order sustaining the motion. The judgment was entered December 27tli, 1866. The plaintiff’s bill of costs was filed on the same day. The notice of motion to retax fixed the 5th day of January, 1867, as the day the motion would be made. The order was finally entered on the 13th day of April, 1867. The plaintiff appealed from the order. The defendant…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Sanderson, J.:

An order made on a motion to retax costs is not appeal-able. It is not an order made after final judgment within the meaning of section three hundred and forty-three of the Practice Act, even though it be made after the entry of judgment, for in legal effect the order, if the motion is granted, amounts to a modification or amendment of the judgment, or in other words becomes a j3art of it. If the motion is denied the error .is none the less in the judgment, and can be reviewed only upon an appeal from the judgment. Costs are included in and constitute a part of the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Farwell v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Empire Gold Mining Co. v. Bonanza Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Markart v. ZeimerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  3. Dooly v. NortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  4. Granite Mountain Mining Co. v. WeinsteinMontana Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Rader v. NottinghamMontana Supreme Court · 1874

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API