City Investment Co. v. Pringle
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a portion of a judgment of the City and County of San Francisco awarding costs. J. J. Van Nostrand, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Charles S. Wheeler, John F. Bowie, Nathan Moran, Moran & Heer and A. A. Heer for Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
KINSELL, J., pro tem.
Action was brought to recover unpaid rent and possession of certain real property. Demurrer to complaint was sustained. Amended complaint was filed and defendants, Edward J. Pringle and Sydney J. Pringle, as executors of the last will and testament of William B. Pringle, deceased, moved to strike out the same. This motion was granted. Thereafter, before any further pleadings were filed, appellant filed a voluntary dismissal of the action, which was duly entered.
Defendant executors then filed a memorandum of costs, claiming an appearance fee of three dollars and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Brooks v. ForingtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Prescott v. GradyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Bank of Woodland v. TreadwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by17 opinions
- Trope v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- T.E.D. Bearing Co. v. Walter E. Heller & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1974
- Genis v. KrasneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Mabee v. Nurseryland Garden Centers, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1979
- Sweis v. ChatwinCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1978
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.