Fox v. Hale & Norcross Silver Mining Co.
Before: Harrison
Synopsis
Appeal prom Judgment—Modification.—The appellate court will modify the judgment appealed from, whenever it appears from the record, or from the admission of the parties, that their rights can be finally determined thereby, or when the respondent asks for or consents to such modification.
Id.—Judgment fob Damages—Release by Respondent.—Upon appeal from a judgment for damages, rendered in several sums, upon two distinct causes of action, only one of which is assailed by the appellant, when the respondent releases the appellant from the portion of the damages involved in the appeal, and withdraws his claim to a judgment for such damages, upon his motion in this court the court below will be directed to modify the judgment in accordance with such withdrawal, and as so modified the judgment will be affirmed.
Id.—Judgment Obdebed upon Former Appeal—Second Appeal.— Where a judgment for damages upon one cause of action was ordered to be entered in favor of the plaintiff upon a former appeal, and was entered by the court below in accordance with the mandate of the appellate court, there is no ground for a second appeal therefrom, and it must be affirmed upon such second appeal.
Id.—Costs of Second Trial—'Withdrawal of One Cause of Action.—The right of the prevailing party to costs is statutory, and all the costs in the action may be recovered by the plaintiff, if he recovers judgment for more than three hundred dollars upon any one cause of action, and the costs of a second trial are recoverable by the plaintiff in such case, notwithstanding the withdrawal upon appeal of the cause of action then tried.
HARRISON, J. The facts in this case were fully recited in the opinion given upon a former appeal (Fox v. Hale etc. Min. Co., 108 Cal. 369), and need not be repeated. Under the complaint a recovery is sought from the appellants in behalf of the corporation upon two distinct claims or causes of action, one for the difference between the amount paid by the corporation for the milling of the ores and the actual cost thereof, and the other for damages sustained by reason of imperfect and fraudulent milling of the ores. At the former trial of the cause, the superior court found that upon the first of these claims the corporation had paid $210,197.50 for milling the ores in excess of the actual cost thereof, and that upon the other cause of action it had sustained damage to the amount of $789,618, and rendered judgment against the appellants for these amounts. Upon the appeal therefrom this court affirmed the decision of the superior court upon the first issue, but reversed its decision upon the second, and remanded the cause with directions to the superior court to enter a judgment against the appellants herein, as of the date of its former judgment, for the amount of $210,197.51 [221]with interest from that date. Upon the issue presented by the claim for damages sustained by reason of the imperfect and fraudulent milling of the ores, the order denying a new trial was set aside, and the superior court was directed to retry that issue, and make its findings of fact in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion of this court. After the cause had been remanded to the superior court, that court, in obedience to these directions, proceeded to take evidence upon the second of the above issues, and made its findings of facts thereon, in which it found that the corporation had sustained damage in the sum of $417,683 from the fraudulent and imperfect milling of the ores; and thereupon entered judgment against the appellants herein that the plaintiff have and recover from them for the use and benefit of the corporation the sum of $210,197.50, with interest thereon from the eleventh day of June, 1892, at the legal rate, upon the issue presented by the claim for having paid an excessive price for milling the ores, and the further sum of $417,683, with interest thereon from the eleventh day of June, 1892, upon the issue presented by the claim for damages sustained by reason of the imperfect and fraudulent milling of said ores. From the judgment thus entered the present appeal has been taken. After the hearing of the appeal the respondent filed herein a release of all claim for damages by reason of the imperfect and fraudulent milling of the ores, and has made a motion that the judgment appealed from be modified by striking out that portion thereof which was rendered upon the issue presented by this claim, or which authorizes a recovery from the appellants of any portion of the damages thus sustained; and that upon such modification the judgment appealed from be affirmed. In reply thereto it is urged by the appellants that, instead of granting the motion the cause should be remanded to the superior court and the motion made there.
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)