30 Cal.2d 914, 17447, Lane v. Pacific Greyhound Lines

Docket Nº:17447
Citation:30 Cal.2d 914, 187 P.2d 9
Opinion Judge:[10] Gibson
Party Name:Lane v. Pacific Greyhound Lines
Attorney:[7] F. H. Dam for Appellants. [8] Cooley, Crowley & Supple, Cooley, Crowley, Gaither & Dana and T. H. DeLap for Respondents.
Case Date:December 01, 1947
Court:Supreme Court of California

Page 914

30 Cal.2d 914

187 P.2d 9

NAOMI GAE LANE et al., Appellants,

v.

PACIFIC GREYHOUND LINES (a Corporation) et al., Respondents.

S. F. Nos. 17446, 17447.

Supreme Court of California

Dec. 1, 1947

In Bank.

Page 915

COUNSEL

F. H. Dam for Appellants. Cooley, Crowley &amp Supple, Cooley, Crowley, Gaither &amp Dana and T. H. DeLap for Respondents

OPINION

[187 P.2d 10] GIBSON, C.J.

This court reversed a judgment for defendants in Lane v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 26 Cal.2d 575 , and plaintiffs appeal from certain orders in the proceedings taxing costs on the prior appeal.

Plaintiffs filed their bill for costs on appeal the day following the filing of the remittitur in Lane v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, supra, 26 Cal.App.2d 575. The bill, in addition to a charge of $100 for the cost of printing briefs on appeal, included, as separate items, charges for printing plaintiffs' petition for hearing in the Supreme Court, the opinion of the District Court of Appeal as a part of such petition, and the plaintiffs' answer to defendants' petition for rehearing in the Supreme Court. Upon receipt of this bill defendants' attorney wrote a letter to plaintiffs questioning the three items, and four days after the time provided for making objections to such a bill had expired (Code Civ. Proc., section 1034), defendants filed a motion to tax costs, seeking to eliminate those charges. Then, 17 days later, defendants filed a motion under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure for relief from default in failing to file objections on time and for permission to file a second motion. A showing was made by affidavit that the delay was caused by a mistake made by an inexperienced employee of defendants' attorney in calendaring the due date of the motion to tax. Thereafter, plaintiffs moved to strike the first motion to tax costs which had been filed four days late. At the hearing on defendants' motion for relief from default and plaintiffs' motion to strike, the court granted the defendants' motion and denied that of plaintiffs. Upon [187 P.2d 11] the hearing of the objections to the cost bill on their merits, the court struck the three items in excess of $100 for the cost of printing briefs.

Page 916

Plaintiffs appealed from these three orders: (1) the order refusing to strike the motion to tax costs on appeal, (2) the order granting relief from default and...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP