
    [Civ. No. 1475.
    Second Appellate District.
    July 14, 1914.]
    WILBERT MORGRAGE, Appellant, v. THE NATIONAL BANK OF CALIFORNIA (a Corporation), Respondent.
    Costs on Appeal—Failure to Insert Provision in Remittitur— Motion to Recall and Insert Provision.—Where a judgment is affirmed by the appellate court, but the remittitur contains no provision that the respondent shall recover his costs on appeal, the remittitur may be recalled on motion and the clerk be directed to issue a new one containing a provision for such costs.
    MOTION by respondent to recall Remittitur.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    W. N. Goodwin, and Hunsaker & Britt, for Appellant.
    Trippet, Chapman & Biby, for Respondent.
   THE COURT.

The judgment herein was, on appeal to this court, affirmed in an opinion filed herein on the twenty-sixth day of February, 1914. (Morgrage v. National Bank of Cal., 24 Cal. App. 103, [140 Pac. 300].) At the expiration of sixty days the clerk of the court issued to the court below a remittitur which contained no provision to the effect that respondent should recover its costs on appeal. On June 16, 1914, respondent moved the court for a recall of the remittitur and the issuance of a new one containing a judgment in its favor for such costs. No doubt exists that under the provisions of section 1027 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 1913, [Stats. 1913, p. 1033], respondent is entitled to costs as therein provided and which, as stated, were omitted from the judgment of this court. Upon authority of the opinion of the supreme court, filed May 26, 1914, in the case of Estate of Prager, 167 Cal. 737 [141 Pac. 369], which involved the identical question here presented, it is ordered that the remittitur heretofore issued be recalled, and the clerk is directed to Issue in lieu thereof a new remittitur, inserting therein a provision that respondent recover its costs on appeal.  