Case Name: F. N. BEILBY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1902-12-10
Citations: 138 Cal. 51
Docket Number: S. F. No. 3413
Parties: F. N. BEILBY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 51–52

Head Matter:
[S. F. No. 3413.
In Bank.
December 10, 1902.]
F. N. BEILBY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, Respondent.
Cost Bill—Extension op Time—Construction op Code—Power op Judge.—The service and filing of a cost bill is fully within a proper construction of section 1054 of the Code of Civil Procedure, authorizing extensions of time of “a notice other than of appeal,” and the trial judge has power to grant an extension of time therefor.
PETITION for certiorari to the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County. Lucas F. Smith, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
H. C. Wyckoff, for Petitioner.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
Petition for certiorari, presenting the following ease: Petitioner was plaintiff in an action appealed from justice's court to superior court. Upon a trial de novo there was a verdict for defendant. More than five days after the verdict, but within an extension of time granted by the trial judge, the defendant filed his cost-bill, the amount of which was included in his judgment. Petitioner claims that the judgment is to that extent void, because the trial judge had no power to extend the time for filing the cost-bill, and that, being too late, costs were waived.
We think, however, that the service and filing of a cost-bill is fairly within a proper construction of section 1054 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizing extensions of time. It is substantially "a notice other than of appeal."
Writ denied.