Allin v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes and Moving Picture Machine Operators of U.S. and Canada
Decision Date | 17 September 1952 |
Citation | 247 P.2d 857,113 Cal.App.2d 135 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | ALLIN et al. v. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYES & MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF UNITED STATE & CANADA et al. Civ. 19066. |
Kenny & Morris, Eleanor V. Jackson, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Bodkin, Breslin & Luddy, Orville W. McCarroll, Michael G. Luddy, Los Angeles, for respondents.
Plaintiffs are former members of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, and Local 683 thereof. They were expelled from the Unions and brought this action seeking mandamus to compel their restoration and for damages and loss of earnings due to their alleged wrongful expulsion. Defendants are The International Alliance, Local No. 683, certain individuals, officers and agents of the Unions, and numerous defendants sued under fictitious names. The Unions and the officers and agents who were served with process answered. Plaintiffs gave notice of a motion to set the cause for trial and demanded a jury. At the time of trial defendants objected to trial by jury, their objection was sustained and the cause was tried to the court, resulting in findings and judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs appeal, contending the ruling was erroneous.
The briefs contain learned discussions of the law with respect to the right of trial by jury. Plaintiffs say that their action is in mandamus, that mandamus was triable by a jury under the English common law of 1850, and that the common law as it existed in 1850 is the rule of decision in this State. The argument of plaintiffs on this point is vigorously opposed by the defendants. We have concluded, however, that the question is one which does not require decision in this action for the reason that the point was not reserved for review on appeal by an exception to the rulings of the court. Both sides quote from and rely upon the decision of this court in Grossblatt v. Wright, 108 Cal.App.2d 475, at page 480, 239 P.2d 19, at page 23, in which it was said: 'The purpose of an exception is not ritualistic; it is real. It Manifestly, this calls for some affirmative declaration or action after the ruling has been made. The question here is whether this test has been met by the plaintiffs. We believe it has not been met. Defendants say: This position seems to be well taken.
At the time of trial, in reply to the objection of defendants, plaintiffs took the position that they were entitled to a jury as a matter of right, stating: 'It would only be should we be denied a jury as a right that I might then make a motion for an advisory jury.' The question was argued at length as to what issues might or might not be submitted to a jury. After an adverse ruling by the court counsel for plaintiffs stated: 'Now, your Honor, at this time we ask that your Honor impanel an advisory jury and we move the Court to that effect.' Whereupon the court stated: 'The ruling in connection with the request for an advisory jury is as follows: that the request for an advisory jury upon all issues is denied and that if ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mozzetti v. City of Brisbane
...that where affirmative action or conduct is required, mere silence must be taken as acquiescence (Allin v. International, etc., Stage Employes (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 135, 138--139, 247 P.2d 857). It is equally axiomatic that the parties must abide by the consequences of their own acts, and c......
-
Hernandez v. City of Oakley
...and waiver of the right to a probation hearing at the July 28, 2009 hearing. Id. (citing Cal. Civ. Code Section 3516; Allin v. Int'l Alliance, 113 Cal. App. 2d 135 (1952)). 4. Claim Eight (Negligence) Defendants argue that Plaintiff's negligence claim fails because a county cannot be held l......
-
Hughes v. State
...of the court under circumstances amounting to acquiescence therein, may not complain of it on appeal." (Allin v. Internat. etc. Stage Employes (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 135, 138.) "'An appellate court will ordinarily not consider procedural defects or erroneous rulings, in connection with relie......
-
Kalfin v. Kalfin
...of the court under circumstances amounting to acquiescence therein, may not complain of it on appeal." (Allin v. Internat. etc. Stage Employees (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 135, 138 (Allin).) When a party acquiesces to a jury trial, she cannot complain on appeal a jury should not have been allowed......