James

James v. Public Finance Corp.

Caution
121 Cal. Rptr. 670·1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1085·47 Cal. App. 3d 995
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 7, 1975Civ. 33132California3,873 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lazarus, J.

This is an action to recover damages for three alleged wrongful garnishments against plaintiff’s wages based upon a judgment of the small claims court procured by a fraudulent return of service of summons.

A jury returned a verdict on a typewritten form which purported to be in favor of plaintiff-appellant, but in assessing damages the following figures were filled in by the forelady:

Thereafter the trial judge granted a motion by defendants to vacate the judgment entered on the verdict under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 663. His order granting the motion directed the entiy of a new and different judgment against defendants “. . . in the amount of Zero Dollars ($00.00) General, Compensatory Damages.” The order also awarded costs to defendants.

As grounds for reversal, appellant contends: 1. The rule that a verdict for zero compensatory damages will nullify an award of punitive damages should not apply in a case such as this where the existence of a tortious act resulting in some actual damages manifestly appears from the evidence; 2. the verdict for zero general damages was a general verdict and not a special finding of fact within the meaning of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.