Courtney

Weinstock-Nichols Co. v. Courtney

Good Law
1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 229·26 Cal. App. 445·147 P. 218
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 30, 1915Civ. No. 1516.California1,010 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

James, J.

A technical question only is presented on this appeal taken from a judgment entered against the defendants. It is presented on the judgment-roll.

Appellants contend that the superior judge of Inyo County, who sat at the trial in Los Angeles County, was without power to settle and sign the findings in the county of Ills residence. The right of a judge of one county to make up and sign findings in a county other than that in which the trial has been had has long been settled by the decisions of our supreme court. (Comstock Q. M. Co. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 625 ; Walter v. Merced Academy Assoc., 126 Cal. 582 , [ 59 Pac. 136 ]; Estudillo v. Security Loan etc. Co., 158 Cal. 66 , [ 109 Pac. 884 ].) Appellants admit the law is so established, but contend that by reason of an amendment made to section 634 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the legislature of 1913 [Stats. 1913, p. 58], the signing of the findings constituted a judicial act, which of necessity to be valid should be performed at the place where the cause was pending. The amendment referred to provides as follows: “In all cases where the court directs a party to prepare findings, a copy of said proposed findings shall be…

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.