Schrader v. Neville

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1949 No. L. A. 20932Published

Before: Edmonds

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant who successfully defeats a plaintiff's claim in an action arising from an automobile accident is the prevailing party entitled to costs, regardless of whether the defendant's own claim was labeled a counterclaim or cross-complaint.

Issues

Whether a defendant who defeats a plaintiff's claim in an action where both parties fail to recover on their respective claims is entitled to costs as the prevailing party.
Whether the designation of a pleading as a cross-complaint or counterclaim determines the right to recover costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a party who defeats an action by a counterclaim is as much entitled to his costs as is a party who defeats it by any other means.”

“In an action such as the instant one for damages, the ‘net result’ of a judgment which awards nothing to plaintiff is favorable to the former.”

EDMONDS, J.

Delos W. Schrader and his wife sued to recover damages assertedly sustained as the result of the collision of two automobiles. The defendants, John Neville and his wife, filed a cross-complaint for damages claimed by them because of the same accident, and upon a trial neither party recovered against the other. The Nevilles then moved “to tax, disallow and annul the memorandum of costs filed by” the Schraders and the appeal is from an order allowing such costs.

The position of the appellants is that, as the prevailing parties in the action, they are entitled to recover the costs of the litigation. The Schraders argue that, because the cross-complaint states an entirely separate cause of action, they must be considered as the prevailing parties, insofar as the issues in that regard are concerned, and the court correctly awarded costs to them.

Section 1032 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the recovery of costs in an action in the superior court “ (a) To plaintiff upon a judgment in his favor . . . [and] (b) To the defendant upon a judgment in his favor. . . .” In effect, say the appellants, this means “costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party” in the action. However, according to ‘the Nevilles, they defeated the cause of action sued upon by the Schraders and received, to use the words of the statute, “a judgment in their favor in an action for the recovery of damages. ’ ’

[114]

Unlike the statutes in many jurisdictions, our code section is not framed in the express language of the “prevailing party” but it allows the recovery of costs upon that basis by specifying as the condition for an award of them, “a judgment in his favor.” The'difficulty arises when a defendant files a pleading' denominated by him as a “cross-complaint,” for it is established that, under such circumstances and for certain purposes, “there are two simultaneous actions pending between the same parties wherein each is at the same time both a plaintiff and a defendant.”

(Pacific Finance Corp.

Superior Court,

219 Cal. 179, 182 [25 P.2d 983, 90 A.L.R. 384]; see, also,

Schrader v. Neville

AI Brief

EDMONDS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief