Cranston v. Compton

California Court of Appeal Apr 3, 1962 No. Civ. 19892Published

Before: Tobriner

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Section 14675 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, as a specific statute governing costs against the Controller, prevails over general statutes and rules regarding the awarding of costs against the State. Consequently, the court held that costs may not be awarded against the Controller in such proceedings.

Issues

Whether section 14675 of the Revenue and Taxation Code precludes the awarding of costs against the Controller in proceedings under that part, notwithstanding general provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure and Rules on Appeal.

Disposition. remittitur recalled and corrected

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“[A] special statute dealing expressly with a particular subject controls and takes priority over a general statute.”

“The specific statute must prevail ; our holding does not render section 1028 meaningless; it merely articulates a legislative exception to that provision.”

“The motion is granted. The remittitur is recalled for the purpose of striking therefrom the provision “Respondent to recover costs on appeal” and as corrected is ordered to issue forthwith.”

TOBRINER, J.

In Estate of Compton

(1962) 198 Cal. App.2d 766 [18 Cal.Rptr. 416], following the decision of this court affirming the order below, the parties stipulated that a remittitur should issue forthwith. The remittitur issued on January 31, 1962, and it contained the provision: “Respondent to recover costs on appeal.” Appellant filed a motion for recall of the remittitur on the ground that costs may not be awarded against the Controller under the provisions of section 14675 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. While conflicting provisions of three statutes and of the Rules on Appeal seemingly apply to the problem, we set out

infra

[96]

why we believe the specific provisions of section 14675 must govern.

The first and earliest such statutory provision, section 1028 of the Code of Civil Procedure, approved by the Governor on April 20, 1943, and effective August 4, 1943, provides: “Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, when the State is a party, costs shall be awarded against it on the same basis as against any other party and, when awarded, must be paid out of the appropriation for the support of the agency on whose behalf the State appeared.”

The second legislative expression, section 14675 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, approved May 20, 1943, and effective July 1, 1945, provides: “No fee shall be charged the Controller for filing, recording, or certifying any petition, lis pendens, decree, or order, or for taking any oath or acknowledgment, in any proceeding under this part;

nor shall

any undertaking be required from or

costs awarded against the Controller or the State in any such proceeding.”

(Emphasis added.) The accompanying sections 14671 and 14673 state that inconsistent provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to any proceedings, including appeals, shall be applicable, “ [e]xeept as otherwise provided in this part” (§ 14671), and that “ [n]othing in this article precludes the State from any relief provided for in this part which may be inconsistent with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure” (§ 14673).

Cranston v. Compton

AI Brief

TOBRINER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief