Oppenheimer v. Robinson

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: SHINN
• Citation: Oppenheimer v. Robinson, 163 Cal.App.2d 367, 329 P.2d 318 (Cal. App. 1958)
• Decision Date: 05 September 1958
• Parties: John G. OPPENHEIMER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. P. D. ROBINSON, Southern Pacific Company, a corporation, Defendants, Southern Pacific Company, a corporation, Respondent. Civ. 22932.

Page 318

329 P.2d 318

163 Cal.App.2d 367

John G. OPPENHEIMER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. P. D. ROBINSON, Southern Pacific Company, a corporation, Defendants Southern Pacific Company, a corporation, Respondent.

Civ. 22932.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Sept. 5, 1958.

John G. Oppenheimer, in pro. per.

E. D. Yeomans and Walt A. Steiger, Los Angeles, W. A. Gregory, San Francisco, for respondent.

SHINN, Presiding Justice.

Upon a former appeal by Oppenheimer, 150 Cal.App.2d 420, 309 P.2d 887, respondent Southern Pacific Company filed a printed brief which, exclusive of covers and index, comprised 14 pages. Having prevailed on the appeal the company filed a cost bill claiming $100.67 as the cost of the brief. Oppenheimer, by motion to tax costs, objected to the charge as excessive. The motion was denied and he appeals.

The appeal does not present a question of law. Rule 26(c), Rules on Appeal, allows as reasonable costs 'the reasonable cost of printing or reproduction of briefs by other process of duplication.' Prior to amendmant of the rule as of January 1, 1951, the amount chargeable for briefs was limited to $100 to any one party. Since then the only limitation has been that the amount claimed must be reasonable.

By denying the motion the court determined from the evidence before it that the charge was not unreasonable. That was a factual decision which is binding upon this court unless the evidence compelled a contrary conclusion. Neither the trial court nor this court has judicial knowledge of what would have been a reasonable charge in Los Angeles County for printing the brief in question.

The trial court's ruling has support in the evidence. The motion was heard upon the affidavit of Oppenheimer and an affidavit of Robert M. Parker, Jr., Vice-President of Parker & Son, Inc., the printers. It was averred by Oppenheimer that the brief could have been printed for $2.65 or less per page, and for a total of about $50. In Parker's affidavit it was averred: 'The firm of Parker & Son, Inc. has been in the business of printing briefs for over 58 years. This firm keeps a very accurate record of costs and production and the price as charged for our services is just and reasonable under the present day wage scale labor market, and is calculated on the same basis as charges made to other customers of Parker & Son, Inc.'

The fact, alone, that some printers charge less than others does not necessarily prove that the...