From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lady v. Palen

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Feb 18, 1936
12 Cal.App.2d 3 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)


Docket No. 10673.

February 18, 1936.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County striking out a cost bill. Charles L. Bogue, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

William Ellis Lady, in pro. per., and Webster Hazlehurst for Appellant.

Andrew J. Copp, Jr., for Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from an order striking out his cost bill after he obtained judgment in a libel action for the sum of $1 nominal damages and $200 punitive and exemplary damages.

[1] This is the question presented for determination:

Is the plaintiff in a libel action, who recovers a judgment for less than $2,000, entitled to have taxed as items of cost: (1) The sum of $100 to cover counsel fees under section 7 of Act 4317 of the state legislature, volume II, Deering's General Laws, 1931, page 2161, and (2) Other expenses incurred.

The first item is not properly taxable according to the decision in Rapfogel v. Klassen, 185 Cal. 524 [ 197 P. 795].

Neither is the second item legally taxable, in view of the decision in Jacobi v. Baur, 55 Cal. 554, 555, cited with approval in Rapfogel v. Klassen, supra, which holds that plaintiff is not entitled to costs in a libel action beyond those allowed by the general law, as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure.

In the instant case the judgment recovered was one that could have been rendered by an inferior court within the county and hence costs were not allowed by the general law. (Sec. 1032 (c), Code Civ. Proc.)

[2] The point as to the constitutionality of section 1032 (c), Code of Civil Procedure, raised by plaintiff for the first time in his reply brief will not be considered by us, since no reason or excuse has been offered for not having presented the point in his opening brief. ( Newcomb v. Title Guarantee Trust Co., 131 Cal.App. 329 [ 21 P.2d 456, 22 P.2d 552].)

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Crail, P.J., and Wood, J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on April 16, 1936.

Summaries of

Lady v. Palen

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Feb 18, 1936
12 Cal.App.2d 3 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
Case details for

Lady v. Palen

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM ELLIS LADY, Appellant, v. MARY AGNES PALEN, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two

Date published: Feb 18, 1936


12 Cal.App.2d 3 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
54 P.2d 1134

Citing Cases

Truelsen v. Nelson

[7] A further consideration is that this point was raised for the first time in appellants' reply brief, and…

Rogers v. County Bank of Santa Cruz

Accordingly, the court refused the plaintiff's claim for costs on the basis that his recovery by way of…