Hotchkiss v. Smith
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Modoc County denying a motion to have satisfaction of judgment entered. G. F. Harris, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Fleet, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion, made under section 675 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to have satisfaction of judgment entered.
The only question involved is whether plaintiff is entitled on execution, as a part of her judgment, to be paid an item of sheriff’s fees and expenses for keeping property held under a writ of attachment, when such fees and expenses were not claimed by plaintiff in her memorandum of costs, and consequently not included in the judgment.
Section 1033 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “The party in whose favor judgment is rendered, and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Chapin & Mastick v. BroderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Sellick v. De CarlowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Riddell v. HarrellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by13 opinions
- Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- Falk v. FalkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Fitzpatrick v. UnderwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1946
- Gregg v. Manufacturers Building Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1933
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.