Ross v. Murphy
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | McCOMB; MOORE, P. J., and FOX |
| Citation | 113 Cal.App.2d 453,248 P.2d 122 |
| Parties | ROSS v. MURPHY et al. Civ. 18966. |
| Decision Date | 02 October 1952 |
Page 122
v.
MURPHY et al.
Hearing Denied Nov. 25, 1952.
Porter C. Blackburn, Burbank, for appellant.
Samuel Reisman, Norman Pittluck, Los Angeles, of counsel, for respondent.
McCOMB, Justice.
From an order of Judge Ingall W. Bull setting aside an order of Judge Charles S. Haas, both of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, directing the county [113 Cal.App.2d 454] clerk to file findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment of Judge Pat R. Parker 1 in favor of defendant which had been signed prior to Judge Parker's death but not filed with the county clerk, defendant appeals.
Chronology
i. March 30, 1948, Judge Parker caused to be entered a minute order giving judgment for defendant, in a trial over which he had presided, in which plaintiff and defendant were parties.
ii. April 30, 1948, Judge Parker signed findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment.
iii. August 2, 1948, Judge Parker died.
iv. September 13, 1948, Judge Haas by an ex parte order directed the county clerk to file the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment theretofore signed by Judge Parker.
v. November 5, 1948, Judge Bull, after notice to both parties and a hearing, granted plaintiff's motion to vacate the order of Judge Haas (dated September 13, 1948) and to strike from the county clerk's files the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment signed by Judge Parker.
It is from this order that defendant appeals.
Page 123
Questions: First: Was Judge Haas's order void?
Yes, and this pertinent rule is applicable:
When a case is tried by the court without a jury and the judge signs findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment, but before they are filed he vacates his office, 2 his successor is without power to order the documents filed and such order is void. (Connolly v. Ashworth, 98 Cal. 205 et seq., 33 P. 60. Cf. Reimer v. Firpo, 94 Cal.App.2d 798, 801, 212 P.2d 23; Martello v. Superior Court, 202 Cal. 400, 407, 261 P. 476; Guardianship of Sullivan, 143 Cal. 462, 467, 77 P. 153.)
Telefilm, Inc., v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.2d 289, 201 P.2d 811, is not here in point. In the Telefilm case a motion for a new trial was granted by a judge other than the one who had [113 Cal.App.2d 455] originally tried the case. The Supreme Court upheld this order because of the statutory provisions authorizing this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Feldman v. Board of Pharmacy of Dist. of Columbia, No. 2404.
...States ex rel. Chin Cheung Nai v. Corsi, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 55 F.2d 360; Fox v. Fox, 127 Cal.App.2d 253, 273 P.2d 585; Ross v. Murphy, 113 Cal.App.2d 453, 248 P.2d 122; Lacey v. Bertone, 109 Cal.App.2d 107, 240 P.2d 395; Reimer v. Firpo, 94 Cal.App.2d Page 103 212 P.2d 23; Dawson v. Wright, 234 ......
-
Levine v. Smith, No. B191815.
...the one who granted the default judgment. (Myers v. Washington (1963) 211 Cal. App.2d 767, 771, 27 Cal.Rptr. 778; Ross v. Murphy (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 453, 455, 248 P.2d Under the doctrine of priority of jurisdiction, the first superior court to assume and exercise jurisdiction in the case ......
-
Bodine v. Superior Court In and For Santa Barbara County
...P. 347; Reimer v. Firpo, 94 Cal.App.2d 798, 801, 212 P.2d 23; Perez v. Perez, 111 Cal.App.2d 827, 829, 245 P.2d 344; Ross v. Murphy, 113 Cal.App.2d 453, 454, 248 P.2d 122; David v. Goodman, supra, 114 Cal.App.2d 571, 574-577, 250 P.2d 704; Fox v. Fox, 127 Cal.App.2d 253, 255, 273 P.2d Guard......
-
Hayward Union High School Dist. of Alameda County v. Madrid
...and all orders based upon Judge Sherwin's order were void. Page 277 Defendants rely for their contention on Ross v. Murphy [1952], 113 Cal.App.2d 453, 248 P.2d 122, and Connolly v. Ashworth [1893], 98 Cal. 205, 33 P. 60. In Ross, Judge Parker signed findings of fact and a judgment but died ......
-
Feldman v. Board of Pharmacy of Dist. of Columbia, No. 2404.
...States ex rel. Chin Cheung Nai v. Corsi, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 55 F.2d 360; Fox v. Fox, 127 Cal.App.2d 253, 273 P.2d 585; Ross v. Murphy, 113 Cal.App.2d 453, 248 P.2d 122; Lacey v. Bertone, 109 Cal.App.2d 107, 240 P.2d 395; Reimer v. Firpo, 94 Cal.App.2d Page 103 212 P.2d 23; Dawson v. Wright, 234 ......
-
Levine v. Smith, No. B191815.
...the one who granted the default judgment. (Myers v. Washington (1963) 211 Cal. App.2d 767, 771, 27 Cal.Rptr. 778; Ross v. Murphy (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 453, 455, 248 P.2d Under the doctrine of priority of jurisdiction, the first superior court to assume and exercise jurisdiction in the case ......
-
Bodine v. Superior Court In and For Santa Barbara County
...P. 347; Reimer v. Firpo, 94 Cal.App.2d 798, 801, 212 P.2d 23; Perez v. Perez, 111 Cal.App.2d 827, 829, 245 P.2d 344; Ross v. Murphy, 113 Cal.App.2d 453, 454, 248 P.2d 122; David v. Goodman, supra, 114 Cal.App.2d 571, 574-577, 250 P.2d 704; Fox v. Fox, 127 Cal.App.2d 253, 255, 273 P.2d Guard......
-
Hayward Union High School Dist. of Alameda County v. Madrid
...and all orders based upon Judge Sherwin's order were void. Page 277 Defendants rely for their contention on Ross v. Murphy [1952], 113 Cal.App.2d 453, 248 P.2d 122, and Connolly v. Ashworth [1893], 98 Cal. 205, 33 P. 60. In Ross, Judge Parker signed findings of fact and a judgment but died ......