Gibson v. Hammang
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Action to annul a deed to certain lands. Plaintiffs had judgment. They appeal from that part of the judgment which denied them their costs of suit.
Respondent’s contention is, that “in this class of cases the allowance of costs is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the trial court.” (Citing Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1025; Abram v. Stuart, 96 Cal. 235; Irvine v. Perry, 119 Cal. 352; Bathgate v. Irvine, 126 Cal. 149; Senior v. Anderson, 130 Cal. 290, and other cases.)
Appellants claim that the action involved the title or possession to real estate, and that plaintiffs were entitled…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bathgate v. IrvineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Senior v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Irvine v. PerryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Sierra Union Water & Mining Co. v. WolffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Shafer v. LacyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Hoyt v. HartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Gregg v. HughesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
- Petitpierre v. MaguireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Muzio v. EricksonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Coffman v. BushardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.