TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Elledge v. Superior Court

GRACE ELLEDGE, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT, Etc., Et Al., Respondents

Elledge v. Superior Court, 63 P. 360 (Cal. 1900)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 31, 1900
Docket
No. Sac. No. 547.
Judges
THE COURT.
Citations
63 P. 360131 Cal. 2791900 Cal. LEXIS 776
Headnotes
Costs—Special Order After Judgment—Appeal—Certiorari.—A special order made after judgment reducing the amount of the judgment by striking out the costs therefrom is appealable, and cannot be reviewed or annulled upon a writ of certiorari.
Summary
CERTIORARI in the Supreme Court to review an order of the Superior Court of Lassen County striking out the costs from a judgment. E. A. Kelley, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

In an action brought by the petitioner against D. W. Ridenour et al. in the superior court of Lassen county, judgment was entered in his favor for the amount of two hundred and ninety dollars damages. Thereafter the defendants therein filed a memorandum of costs amounting to ninety-two dollars. Plaintiff thereupon moved the court to strike this memorandum of costs from the files,upon the ground that as the judgment made no provision regarding costs the defendants were not entitled to recover their costs. The court granted this motion, but immediately thereafter, of its own motion, made and caused to be entered the following order: “Ordered that the judgment entered herein be reduced the full amount of defendants’ cost bill herein, to wit, ninety-two dollars.” The plaintiff has obtained a writ of review for the purpose of having this order annulled, upon the grounds that it was without the power of the court to make it.

The order sought to be annulled was a special order made after final judgment, in direct terms modifying the judgment previously given, and by express provision of the statute is made appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 939.) Although-the cost bill is referred to as the basis of its action, the order of the *280 court applies to the judgment and not to the cost hill. The order could have been reviewed either upon an appeal tahen directly therefrom, independent of an appeal from the judgment, or its correctness could have been determined upon an appeal from the judgment as modified in accordance with its terms. Being an appealable order, it cannot he reviewed upon a writ of certiorari.

(Code Civ. Proc., sec.

1068.)

This subject has recently been very fully considered in Southern Cal. Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, 127 Cal. 417 , and this rule is there specifically declared.

The writ is discharged.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1904: 11908: 11913: 11924: 11925: 11926: 21932: 119042026peak 1926 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hennessy v. Superior Court228 P. 862 (Cal. 1924)
  2. Linforth v. San Francisco Gas & Electric Co.99 P. 716 (Cal. Ct. App. 1908)
  3. County of Contra Costa v. Cowell Portland Cement Co.14 P.2d 606 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
  4. Engel v. Ehret131 P. 351 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
  5. Markart v. Zeimer239 P. 856 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925)
  6. Sierra Union Water & Mining Co. v. Wolff77 P. 1038 (Cal. 1904)

Most recent

  1. County of Contra Costa v. Cowell Portland Cement Co.14 P.2d 606 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
  2. A. Méndez & Brother v. Second Municipal Court of San Juan35 P.R. 201 (1926)
  3. Méndez v. Corte Municipal del Distrito Municipal de San Juan35 P.R. Dec. 219 (1926)
  4. Markart v. Zeimer239 P. 856 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925)
  5. Hennessy v. Superior Court228 P. 862 (Cal. 1924)
  6. Engel v. Ehret131 P. 351 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Southern Cal. Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, 59 P. 789 (Cal. 1899) 17

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list