From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beilby v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California,In Bank
Dec 10, 1902
138 Cal. 51 (Cal. 1902)

Opinion

S.F. No. 3413.

December 10, 1902.

PETITION for certiorari to the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County. Lucas F. Smith, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

H.C. Wyckoff, for Petitioner.


Petition for certiorari, presenting the following case: Petitioner was plaintiff in an action appealed from justice's court to superior court. Upon a trial de novo there was a verdict for defendant. More than five days after the verdict, but within an extension of time granted by the trial judge, the defendant filed his cost-bill, the amount of which was included in his judgment. Petitioner claims that the judgment is to that extent void, because the trial judge had no power to extend the time for filing the cost-bill, and that, being too late, costs were waived.

We think, however, that the service and filing of a cost-bill is fairly within a proper construction of section 1054 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizing extensions of time. It is substantially "a notice other than of appeal."

Writ denied.


Summaries of

Beilby v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California,In Bank
Dec 10, 1902
138 Cal. 51 (Cal. 1902)
Case details for

Beilby v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:F.N. BEILBY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of California,In Bank

Date published: Dec 10, 1902

Citations

138 Cal. 51 (Cal. 1902)
70 P. 1024

Citing Cases

Soda v. Marriott

It has been held that a trial judge has power to extend the time within which a cost bill may be filed. (…

Coast Electric Service, Inc., v. Jensen

( Chapin v. Broder, 16 Cal. 403.) In other words, as said in Griffith v. Welbanks Co., 26 Cal.App. 477 [ 147…