Muller v. Municipal Court of Southern Judicial Dist. ofSan Mateo County
| Decision Date | 26 November 1956 |
| Citation | 303 P.2d 775,146 Cal.App.2d 231 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | William MULLER, Petitioner and Appellant, v. The MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE SOUTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY and the Honorable Edward J. Ryan, as Judge of said Municipal Court, Respondents and Respondent. Civ. 17023. |
William Muller, in pro. per.
Charles Reagh, San Francisco, Keith C. Sorenson, Dist. Atty. of San Mateo County, Lyle R. Edson, Chief Civil Deputy Dist. Atty., Redwood City, for respondent.
Appellant William Muller brought a forcible entry and detainer action in the municipal court and served six defendants, four of whom appeared and answered. The other two defaulted. He then applied to that court for entry of default and for judgment against these two. The court denied the application, whereupon Muller petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandamus against the municipal court, directing entry of the defaults and a determination, upon the merits, of Muller's application for judgment against the defaulting defendants. After a hearing the superior court denied the petition for a peremptory writ and Muller appealed.
Upon the hearing before the superior court it developed that the defaults had been entered prior to the hearing in the municipal court. That removed one of the issues. No purpose would be served in directing the doing of that which had already been done.
It further appeared that a proceeding to set aside the defaults, instituted subsequent to the municipal court hearing, was pending in the municipal court at the time of the superior court hearing. That, we believe, was sufficient ground for the superior court, in the exercise of its legal discretion, to deny issuance of a writ to hear and determine Muller's application for a default judgment. See Rogers v. Board of Directors, 218 Cal. 221, 223-225, 22 P.2d 509; Ault v. Council of City of San Rafael, 17 Cal.2d 415, 147, 110 P.2d 379; 16 Cal.Jur. 768, Mandamus, § 7.
It further appears that no moratorium affidavit has been filed as required by 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 520. That statute declares that in the case of a default 'the plaintiff, before entering judgment shall file in the court [here, the municipal court] an affidavit setting forth facts showing that the defendant is not in military service.' Muller claims he need not file such an affidavit until just before entry of judgment; hence, that he has a right to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruce v. Gregory
...the mandamus proceedings and the petition should be dismissed as moot. (Thornton v. Hoge, 84 Cal. 231, 23 P. 1112; Muller v. Municipal Court, 146 Cal.App.2d 231, 303 P.2d 775; Mitchell v. Warren, 95 Cal.App.2d 594, 213 P.2d 413.) The rationale is, 'No purpose would be served in directing th......
-
City and County of San Francisco v. Muller
...v. Justice's Court, 129 Cal.App.2d 570, 277 P.2d 866; Muller v. Muller, supra, 141 Cal.App.2d 722, 297 P.2d 789; Muller v. Municipal Court, 146 Cal.App.2d 231, 303 P.2d 775; Muller v. Reagh, 148 Cal.App.2d 157, 306 P.2d 593; Muller v. Reagh, 150 Cal.App.2d 99, 309 P.2d 826; Muller v. Muller......
-
Dumps v. State Water Res. Control Bd.
...reconsideration petition." "No purpose would be served in directing the doing of that which had already been done." (Muller v. Municipal Court (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 231, 232; Bruce v. Gregory (1967) 65 Cal.2d 666, 671; see also Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. v. State Bd. ......
-
Dumps v. State Water Res. Control Bd.
...reconsideration petition." "No purpose would be served in directing the doing of that which had already been done." (Muller v. Municipal Court (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 231, 232; Bruce v. Gregory (1967) 65 Cal.2d 666, 671; see also Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. v. State Bd. ......