Eistrat v. Brush Indus. Lumber Co.

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: FOURT; WHITE, P. J., and DRAPEAU
• Citation: Eistrat v. Brush Indus. Lumber Co., 319 P.2d 466, 156 Cal.App.2d 460 (Cal. App. 1957)
• Decision Date: 30 December 1957
• Parties: Thomas EISTRAT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BRUSH INDUSTRIAL LUMBER COMPANY, a corporation; John A. Brush, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 22662.

Page 466

319 P.2d 466

156 Cal.App.2d 460

Thomas EISTRAT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BRUSH INDUSTRIAL LUMBER COMPANY, a corporation; John A. Brush, Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 22662.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Dec. 30, 1957.

Hearing Denied Feb. 26, 1958.

Thomas Eistrat in pro. per.

W. W. Schooling, Kenneth M. Liskum, Huntington Park, for respondents.

FOURT, Justice.

This is an appeal from an 'order entered on plaintiff's motion to tax costs claimed by respondents on appeal' made April 15, 1957, insofar as said order allows costs for the printing of respondents' reply brief in the amount of $89.11, and for printing respondent's answer to the petition of plaintiff for hearing in the Supreme Court in the amount of $98.14.

The respondents were successful in the appeal taken by appellant from a judgment in favor of respondents, and filed a memorandum of costs and disbursements. The appellant filed a motion to tax the costs claimed by respondents and to strike from respondents' memorandum all of the items and to disallow each of them upon the ground that they were not proper charges. The motion was heard and denied as to the items with reference to the costs of printing the briefs and the printing of respondents' answer to appellant's petition for a hearing in the Supreme Court.

Appellant contends that the brief of the respondents was little more than the printing of their memorandum of points and authorities filed in the trial court in support of their demurrer to the plaintiff's third amended complaint, which was sustained without leave to amend. Appellant asserts that had respondents directed the clerk to include such memorandum in the clerk's transcript on appeal, it would have been before the appellate...