Opinion

Estate of Steehler

  • 197 Cal. 67
  • 239 P. 718
  • 1925 Cal. LEXIS 216
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Sep 16, 1925
Status
Published
Cited by
9 cases
Authority
More cited than 78.4%

The opinion

THE COURT.

This was an inheritance tax case. The decision of this court in reversing the judgment made no provision for the recovery of costs. The clerk, however, issued a

remittitur

containing the provision “the appellants to recover costs of appeal.” The present motion is to recall the

remittitur

and to strike from it the last-named provision. The motion is, therefore, limited to the question as to whether or not the costs on appeal were recoverable against this respondent. The inheritance tax statute (Stats. 1921, p. 1520), section 17, subdivision 5, provides with reference to the state controller “that no undertaking shall be required from or costs charged against the state controller in any such proceeding.” The statute was read into our decision and was a part of it. Rule 23- of this court could not, of course, prevail as against the statute. It follows, therefore, that the insertion of the words “appellants to recover costs of appeal” was in violation of the statute, was no part of our judgment, and was an inadvertence on the part of the clerk. The cases cited are not out of harmony touching this subject. The case of

Peterson

v.

Civil Service Board,

68 Cal. App. 752 [ 230 Pac. 196 ], was a case to which the rule of this court upon the subject of costs was properly applicable. The action of the clerk, therefore, in that case was in conformity with our judgment and our rule

*69

and it followed that the motion to recall the

remittitur

some time after the

remittitur

had been issued for the purpose in reality of amending our judgment could not prevail. Judge Knight’s decision in that regard was correct, but that case has no application to the case before us. The case of

San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irr. Co.

v.

Stevinson,

165 Cal. 540 [ 132 Pac. 1021 ], is directly in point, and points out the procedure to be followed in such eases by this court.

The motion is granted. The

remittitur

is recalled for the purpose of striking therefrom the provision “The appellant to recover costs on appeal” and as corrected is ordered to issue forthwith.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.