Adams v. Superior Court of Orange County
Decision Date | 06 November 1959 |
Citation | 345 P.2d 466,52 Cal.2d 867 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | Lenka ADAMS, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; A. G. Maspero, as Administrator, etc., Real Party in Interest. L. A. 25537. |
Joseph W. Fairfield and Ethelyn F. Black, Los Angeles, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Ridley C. Smith, Mize, Larsh, Mize & Hubbard and Delbert L. Larsh, Santa Ana, for real party in interest.
This is a petition for a writ of mandate directing respondent superior court to dismiss an action brought against petitioner (hereinafter termed defendant) by the real party in interest, A. G. Maspero, as administrator of the estate of John G. Gerstacker, deceased (hereinafter termed plaintiff), to quiet title and cancel a deed.
1. April 13, 1954, the action was commenced.
2. June 4, 1954, a demurrer to the complaint was sustained and plaintiff given leave to amend.
3. June 24, 1954, first amended complaint was filed.
4. August 3, 1954, a demurrer to the first amended complaint and a motion to strike were overruled.
5. August 10, 1954, an answer to the first amended complaint was filed.
6. June 24, 1955, defendant filed a memorandum requesting that the case be set for trial.
7. July 5, 1955, plaintiff objected to having the cause set for trial. The objection was overruled and the cause set for trial on December 21, 1955.
8. December 21, 1955, the cause was called for trial. Both sides answered ready, and the case was assigned to a trial department. In the trial department counsel for plaintiff called the attorney for defendant as a witness for the purpose of showing grounds for a continuance. No testimony was taken on the issues of the cause, and subsequently, upon motion of plaintiff's counsel, the matter was continued to March 26, 1956, for trial.
9. Thereafter, on plaintiff's motion, the case was continued for trial, over defendant's objection, to June 16, 1956, February 4, 1957, and June 3, 1957.
10. May 21, 1957, defendant filed a motion returnable on June 3, 1957, to dismiss the action, on the ground that more than three years had elapsed since the commencement of the action.
11. June 3, 1957, defendant's motion to dismiss the action was denied. On plaintiff's motion for a continuance, the trial of the action was continued to December 2, 1957.
12. November 13, 1957, plaintiff filed a motion returnable November 25, 1957, to continue the trial of the action, on the ground that the deposition of defendant had not been taken.
13. November 25, 1957, a conference was held in the chambers of the trial judge, pursuant to plaintiff's motion to continue the cause. The court then continued the matter to December 2, 1957.
14. December 2, 1957, the matter was marked off calendar, pursuant to plaintiff's motion, because he had not as yet taken the deposition of defendant.
15. January 7, 1958, pursuant to stipulation, plaintiff took the deposition of defendant.
16. April 17, 1958, plaintiff served defendant with 188 interrogatories, all but four of which were subsequently answered, the trial judge ruling that those four need not be answered.
17. April 18, 1958, defendant moved the trial court to dismiss the action, on the ground that more than three years had elapsed since the action was filed. This motion was denied.
18. April 29, 1958, and May 26, 1958, defendant served plaintiff with her answers to the interrogatories.
19. April 17, 1959, defendant moved the trial court, returnable April 24, 1959, that the action be dismissed on the ground that more than five years had elapsed without the cause being brought to trial.
20. April 24, 1959, defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.
Section 583 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides in part:
The action was commenced on April 13, 1954, and the five- year period expired April 13, 1959. There was no stipulation extending the time of the trial. The provisions of section 583 of the Code of Civil Procedure are mandatory unless plaintiff can bring his case within one of the exceptions made by the statute or within one of the implied exceptions recognized by decisions. (Tew v. Tew, 160 Cal.App.2d 141, 144(3), 324 P.2d 625; Fisher v. Superior Court, 157 Cal.App.2d 126, 129(1), 320 P.2d 894; Ellsworth v. United States Metals Corp., 110 Cal.App.2d 727, 728(1), 243 P.2d 575 ( ); Douglas v. Superior Court, 94 Cal.App.2d 395, 398(2), 210 P.2d 853.)
Applying the foregoing rule to the present case, since it is conceded that no stipulation in writing was filed by the parties extending the time for trial beyond five years after the commencement of the action, this is the sole question presented...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kindt v. Kauffman
...or law put in issue in a cause. . . .' (Tregambo v. Comanche M. and M. Co. (1881) 57 Cal. 501, 505; see also Adams v. Superior Court (1959) 52 Cal.2d 867, 870, 345 P.2d 466 and cases there cited; Carney v. Simmonds (1957) 49 Cal.2d 84, 90, 315 P.2d 305; City of Pasadena v. Superior Court (1......
-
Crown Coach Corp. v. Superior Court
...533, 71 P.2d 205; see also Tunis v. Superior Court, Supra, 59 Cal.2d 465, 467, 30 Cal.Rptr. 135, 380 P.2d 823; Adams v. Superior Court (1959) 52 Cal.2d 867, 870, 345 P.2d 466; Wyoming Pacific Oil Co. v. Preston (1958) 50 Cal.2d 736, 740, 329 P.2d 489; Stella v. Great Western Sav. & Loan Ass......
-
McDonough Power Equipment Co. v. Superior Court
...or law put in issue in a cause. . . .' (Tregambo v. Comanche M. and M. Co. (1881) 57 Cal. 501, 505; see also Adams v. Superior Court (1959) 52 Cal.2d 867, 870, 345 P.2d 466 and cases there cited; Carney v. Simmonds (1957) 49 Cal.2d 84, 90, 315 P.2d 305; City of Pasadena v. Superior Court (1......
-
Hartman v. Santamarina
...exceptions. (E. g., Tunis v. Superior Court (1963) 59 Cal.2d 465, 466-467, 30 Cal.Rptr. 135, 380 P.2d 823; Adams v. Superior Court (1959) 52 Cal.2d 867, 870, 345 P.2d 466; Andersen v. Superior Court (1921) 187 Cal. 95, 97, 200 P. 963; see Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Superior Court (1946) 28 ......