Security-First National Bank v. Superior Court

MARKS, J.

A decision was filed in this case on June 20, 1933, on a petition for a writ of review, affirming an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County granting a motion for new trial (132 Cal. App. 683 [23 Pac. (2d) 1055]). A petition for hearing by the Supreme Court was denied on August 17, 1933. Thereafter a

remittitur

was issued containing no provision that the respondents recover costs. They have moved for an order recalling the

remittitur

and directing the issuance of another,

nunc pro tunc,

which shall include the recovery of costs by them.

Under the provisions of section 1027 of the Code of Civil Procedure, formerly section 1032 of that code, respondents should recover their costs. We have the un

[196]

doubted right to recall the

remittitur

and order the issuance of a new one

nunc pro tunc

providing for the recovery of costs.

(Estate of Prager,

167 Cal. 737 [141 Pac. 369] ;

Estate of Johnson,

200 Cal. 307 [252 Pac. 1052] ;

Horan

v.

Varian,

207 Cal. 7 [276 Pac. 1002];

Morgrage

v.

National Bank of California,

25 Cal. App. 133 [142 Pac. 1124].)

It is ordered that the