Thomas v. Smith

California Court of Appeal Dec 8, 1934 No. Civ. 8857Published

Before: Scott

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that plaintiffs are entitled to costs because the total judgment exceeded $2,000, notwithstanding that the individual awards were each below that threshold. The court further held that defendants were not entitled to have the awards segregated.

Issues

Whether plaintiffs are entitled to costs when the total judgment exceeds $2,000 despite individual awards being less than that amount.
Whether defendants have a right to have separate awards for husband and wife segregated in the verdict or judgment.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Appellants were not entitled as a matter of right to have the separate awards segregated in the verdict or judgment.”

“The fact that the trial court permitted such a divided verdict and judgment cannot operate to deprive plaintiffs of the costs to which they are entitled”

SCOTT, J.,

pro tem.

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, sued for damages resulting from an automobile accident. The

[702]

jury returned a verdict for William Thomas for $1,041, and a separate verdict for Winifred Thomas for $1500. Separate judgments were thereupon entered for said amounts. Upon filing of cost bill defendants moved to strike it on the ground that each judgment was for less than $2,000. From order denying such motion they appeal.

The two causes of action, to wit, that of the wife for personal injury and of the husband for consequential damage, were properly joined under section 427 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Appellants were not entitled as a matter of right to have the separate awards segregated in the verdict or judgment.

(Bock

Hamilton Square Baptist Church,

219 Cal. 284 [26 Pac. (2d) 7].) The fact that the trial court permitted such a divided verdict and judgment cannot operate to deprive plaintiffs of the costs to which they are entitled under section 1022 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since the total judgment was over $2,000 and was in excess of the jurisdiction of the municipal court.

Order affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Grail, J., concurred.

Thomas v. Smith

AI Brief

SCOTT, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief