Dabovich v. Emeric

California Supreme Court Jul 3, 1860 No. No. 2627Published

Before: Baldwin, Cope

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment because the case was tried in accordance with prior appellate principles and the motion to retax costs was not timely filed in the lower court.

Issues

Whether the trial court committed reversible error in the proceedings.
Whether the motion to retax costs was properly presented.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We see no such error as to induce us to interfere with the judgment.”

“The motion to retax should have been made below within the time prescribed.”

“The judgment is affirmed.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from Fourth Judicial District, San Francisco County

BALDWIN, J. This case has been tried three times and verdicts had for plaintiff. It seems to have been tried the last time in accordance with the principles of the decision here when the case was last in this court. We see no such error as to induce us to interfere with the judgment.

The point as to the costs is not well tafeen. The motion to retax should have been made below within the time prescribed.

The judgment is affirmed.

I concur: Cope, J.

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)

Related research