41 Cal. 439 | Cal. | 1871
Lead Opinion
The judgment was rendered February 21st, 1870; and on the twenty-third of the same month the plaintiff filed his memorandum of costs, etc. At the next term of the Court, defendant Norton moved that the costs be retaxed. The motion was dismissed on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction of the motion, as the judgment had been entered at a former term of the Court. The defendant appeals from the judgment and the order dismissing the motion.
Had the order dismissing the motion been made before the rendition of the judgment, it might have been reviewed under an appeal from the judgment, and might have been presented by a statement on such appeal. But the question here presented is, whether an appeal lies from the order, as a special order made after final judgment. In Levy v. Getleson, 27 Cal. 688, the order denying the motion to retax the costs was made before the judgment was entered, and it was held that the order was not appealable, as it was not made after the final judgment, and that the question of its correctness might be raised by a statement annexed to the judgment roll. It was also held in Stevenson v. Smith, 28 Cal. 105, that an error in the taxation of costs must be reviewed and corrected on an appeal from the judgment. In that case the motion and order were made before the entry of the judgment. In Lasky v. Davis, 33 Cal. 677, the costs were retaxed on the motion of the defendant. The order was made more than three months after the entry of the judgment, and from the order the plaintiff appealed. The
The order made on the motion to retax the costs in an action is a proper subject for review, in some mode, in this Court. If made before the judgment is rendered, it may be reached by an appeal from the judgment; but if made more than twenty days after the entry of judgment, how is the question to be presented for review? It is very clear, upon the authorities in this Court, that it can be presented only by means of a statement on appeal. The statement cannot be annexed to the judgment, because more than twenty days have elapsed since the entry of the judgment. (Sec. 338.) If it is not annexed to the order it has no place in the record and cannot be brought before the appellate Court.
The motion to retax the costs is in effect a motion to modify the judgment, and however the order may be considered, when it is made before the entry of the judgment, it seems clear to me that when it is made after the entry of the judgment it is an order after final judgment as fully in every sense as an order modifying the judgment in any other respect. If this be not the true construction the party complaining of the order would, in many instances, be without redress.
No error appears in the judgment, and it is affirmed; the
Dissenting Opinion
The defendant appeals from the judgment which was entered at the February term of the District Court, and from an order made at the ensuing May term, dismissing his motion to retax the costs. The order is not appealable; hut a review of the action of the Court, on a motion to tax or retax the costs, may be had upon an appeal from the judgment. (Levy v. Getleson, 27 Cal. 688; Stevenson v. Smith, 28 Cal. 105; Lasky v. Davis, 33 Cal. 677.) In Laslcy v. Davis it was considered that the order retaxing the costs was not a special order, made after final judgment, within the meaning of section three hundred and forty-three of the Practice Act, though made after the judgment, in point of time.
It necessarily follows, from the doctrine of those cases, that if the order be made after the rendition of the judgment, the time for the filing of the statement on appeal, so far as respects the proceedings on the motion to tax or retax costs, will commence running from the entry of the order. The statement in this case was filed in due time.
The plaintiff’s memorandum of costs was filed ten days before" the adjournment of the February term; and the defendant, at the May term, moved that the costs be retaxed. The defendant did not show, as required by section sixty-eight of the Practice Act, that he had been unable to apply for a retaxation of the costs during the February term. The Court should, on that ground, have denied the motion. The dismissal of the motion may be accepted in this case as amounting to a denial of the motion; and although the decision was placed on the ground that the Court- had no
I am of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, and the appeal from the order dismissed.
Mr. Justice Crockett did not express an opinion.