Esmond v. Chew
Before: Cope
Synopsis
In this case—suit for damages to a mining claim and for an injunction—plaintiffs had judgment for $100 and costs, taxed at $—, a perpetual injunction being granted also. After the judgment was entered, plaintiffs moved that costs for the trial he allowed. Motion denied, except as to the costs accrued by reason of the injunction granted : Held, that this is a case where the allowance of costs is in the discretion of the Court below.
Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Baldwin, J. concurring.
This is an action for damages, and for an injunction. The plaintiffs recovered less than two hundred dollars, and the question is whether they are entitled to costs. This, we think, is one of the cases in which the allowance of costs is in the discretion of the Court. (Practice Act, sec. 495, 498.) They were refused by the Court below, and we cannot interfere.
Judgment affirmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)