Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 December 1964 |
| Citation | 41 Cal.Rptr. 597,231 Cal.App.2d 80 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | TEITELBAUM FURS, INC., a California corporation, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The DOMINION INSURANCE COMPANY, Ltd., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 27371. |
Leland, Plattner & Kalik, Beverly Hills, for appellant Albert Teitelbaum.
Thomas P. Menzies, James O. White, Jr., Los Angeles, for respondents.
*
Appeal by plaintiff corporations from that portion of a judgment awarding defendants costs of suit and costs of appeal against Albert Teitelbaum, individually, who is not a party to the action.
In this action to recover under contracts of insurance for losses allegedly arising out of a robbery, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs. The trial court granted defendants' motion for new trial and denied defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiffs appealed from the order granting a new trial and defendants appealed from the judgment. The Supreme Court reversed the order granting a new trial and directed the trial court to enter judgment for defendants. (Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., Ltd., 58 Cal.2d 601, 607, 25 Cal.Rptr. 559, 375 P.2d 439.) The opinion of the Supreme Court concludes with this statement: 'Defendants shall recover their costs on these appeals.'
Thereafter defendants moved for entry of judgment in accordance with the opinion and remittitur and further moved 'to include as a person against whom judgment for costs shall be entered Mr. Albert Teitelbaum.' Defendants also filed a memorandum of costs on appeal claimed by defendants against plaintiff corporations 'and Albert Teitelbaum.' Defendants' motion for entry of judgment and 'FOR INCLUSION OF ALBERT TEITELBAUM AS A PARTY AGAINST WHOM JUDGMENT FOR COSTS BE ENTERED' was granted and the court entered a judgment awarding both costs of suit and costs on appeal against plaintiff corporations and against Albert Teitelbaum, individually.
Section 938 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, in part, that 'Any party aggrieved may appeal in the cases prescribed in this Title.' This appeal is by plaintiff corporations 'from so much of the Order granting judgment to the defendants in this action as it pertains to the granting of judgment against Albert Teitelbaum, individually, who was not a party to the action.' Plaintiff corporations do not appeal from the judgment for costs as entered against them but only as it was entered against Albert Teitelbaum who himself has not appealed. Plaintiff corporations are not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knoff v. City etc. of San Francisco
...affected' by the April 3 order; for this reason, we dismiss their appeal from it. (See Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 80, 81--82, 41 Cal.Rptr. 597.) Miscellaneous The city attorney saw fit to file four separate notices of appeal at various intervals, thereb......
-
Canaan Taiwanese Christian Church v. All World Mission Ministries
...in its favor, only a person aggrieved by a decision may appeal. [Citations.]” ( Ibid. ) In Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 80, 41 Cal.Rptr. 597 ( Teitelbaum Furs ), the trial court entered a judgment awarding both costs of suit and costs on appeal against pl......
-
Winter v. Gnaizda
...affected by the judgment (Buffington v. Ohmert (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 254, 255, 61 Cal.Rptr. 360; Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 80, 81, 41 Cal.Rptr. 597). In order to give rise to an appeal, the Interest of appellant must be immediate, pecuniary, and substa......