Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union
| Decision Date | 10 July 1953 |
| Citation | 259 P.2d 23,119 Cal.App.2d 144 |
| Parties | JUNEAU SPRUCE CORP. v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION et al. Civ. 15423. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Gladstein, Andersen & Leonard, San Francisco, for appellant.
Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, San Francisco, for respondent.
The defendant union appeals from a summary judgment. The action was on a foreign judgment entered against appellant union in the District Court for the Territory of Alaska. The nature of the proceeding is fully disclosed in the opinions of the United States Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of the United States affirming the Alaska judgment. International Longshoremen's, etc. v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 9 Cir., 189 F.2d 177; International L. & W. U. v. Juneau Corp., 342 U.S. 237, 72 S.Ct. 235, 96 L.Ed. 275.
The action was on a money judgment. We cannot agree that an action on a money judgment is not 'an action to recover upon a debt or upon a liquidated demand' within the meaning of Code Civ.Proc. sec. 437c, authorizing the entry of summary judgments in actions of that character. A judgment for a specific sum of money has always been treated as a debt by the courts. Miller v. Murphy, 186 Cal. 344, 347, 199 P. 525; Grotheer v. Meyer Rosenberg, Inc., 11 Cal.App.2d 268, 272-273, 53 P.2d 996; Schwartz v. Cal. Claim Service, 52 Cal.App.2d 47, 54, 125 P.2d 883. A judgment for alimony that is subject to future modification stands on a different basis, which explains the holding in Southard v. Southard, 133 Misc. 259, 232 N.Y.S. 391, 392, that an action on a judgment for alimony was not one on 'a judgment for a stated sum' within the meaning of the New York summary judgment statute. See MacDonald v. Butler, 68 Cal.App.2d 120, 156 P.2d 273.
The jurisdiction of the Alaska court to render its judgment is argued by appellant but it can not be successfully attacked in the face of the affirmance of that judgment by the highest court of the land.
The summary judgment was entered on November 20, 1951 and the opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court affirming the Alaska judgment was filed on January 7, 1952. We see no purpose in discussing the interesting question whether a foreign judgment which is treated as final for the purpose of suit in the jurisdiction where rendered even though an appeal is pending, may be the basis of a judgment in the courts of this state before the final decision on appeal. See Taylor v. Shew, 39 Cal. 536; Dowdell v. Carpy, 137 Cal. 333, 70 P. 167. Even if the court was in error in entering its judgment before the final affirmance of the Alaska judgment the error was without prejudice since the same judgment would necessarily have followed if the court had delayed its action for the few weeks intervening between November 20, 1951 and the January 7 following. Const. Art. VI, sec. 4 1/2.
In its closing brief appellant tardily raises a new question. The Alaska judgment was based on the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 185(b), 187, which imposes a liability only on the labor organization as an entity but not on the individual members thereof.
Sec. 388, Code Civ.Proc. which is the authorization for bringing suits against unincorporated associations in California, provides:
'When two or more persons, associated in any business, transact such business under a common name * * * the associates may be sued by such common name * * * and the judgment in the action shall bind the joint property of all the associates, and the individual property of the party or parties served with process, in the same manner as if all had been named defendants and had been sued upon their joint liability.'
From the qualifying language limiting the property which shall be bound by (liable to execution upon) such a judgment appellant argues that suit is authorized by the section against an unincorporated association only when an individual liability exists against its members.
While some jurisdictions hold that a statute permitting suits against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Inglis v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 12
...2 P.2d 756, 79 A.L.R. 291; Artana v. San Jose Scavenger Co., 181 Cal. 627, 185 P. 850; Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 119 Cal.App.2d 144, 259 P.2d 23); labor unions are deemed to be included in section 388 for that purpose. (Juneau Spruce Corp. v......
-
Barr v. United Methodist Church
...(United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co. (1922) 259 U.S. 344, 42 S.Ct. 570, 66 L.Ed. 975; Juneau Spruce Corp. v. I. L. & W. Union (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 144, 259 P.2d 23) and political parties are social clubs, religious organizations, environmental societies, athletic organizati......
-
Oliver v. Swiss Club Tell
...from its members for the purpose of being sued and it may answer as such an entity. (Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 119 Cal.App.2d 144, 147, 259 P.2d 23; Herald v. Glendale Lodge No. 1289, 46 Cal.App. 325, 189 P. 329; Jardine v. Superior Court, 2......
-
Arechiga v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles
...It is difficult to see how the appellants can claim prejudice in the present case. Cf. Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 119 Cal.App.2d 144, 146, 259 P.2d 23. Some reference is made by the appellants to an adverse effect upon their right of appeal a......