Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Jarvis

• Decision Date: 08 July 1957
• Citation: 313 P.2d 17,152 Cal.App.2d 327
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, acting by and through The Reclamation Board of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Peter J. JARVIS et al., Defendants, Peter J. Jarvis and Beulah Jarvis, Appellants. Civ. 9126.

Page 17

313 P.2d 17

152 Cal.App.2d 327

SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, acting by and through The Reclamation Board of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Peter J. JARVIS et al., Defendants Peter J. Jarvis and Beulah Jarvis, Appellants.

Civ. 9126.

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

July 8, 1957.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 5, 1957.

Jesse E. Fluharty, Sacramento, for appellants.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Raymond H. Williamson and Marcus Vanderlaan, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

VAN DYKE, Presiding Justice.

Appellants Peter J. Jarvis and Beulah Jarvis have asked this court to 'certify' the reporter's transcript on appeal 'in accordance with the facts' (Code Civ.Proc. sec. 652), and for permission to file a supplemental clerk's transcript on appeal in support of their motion to certify the reporter's transcript.

The Jarvises were the defendants in an action commenced by the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District to condemn certain land owned by them. After a trial at which the jury determined the value of the land sought to be condemned was $1,500, a judgment in condemnation was entered awarding that sum. They have appealed. After the transcripts on appeal were prepared, the Jarvises, acting under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules on Appeal, requested that certain portions of the reporter's transcript be corrected. A hearing as required by the rule was held before the judge who presided at the trial. Oral testimony was adduced, affidavits and counter-affidavits were filed, and argument was had. The trial judge wholly denied the requests for the correction of the reporter's transcript. Thereafter the Jarvises requested the clerk of the superior court to prepare a supplemental clerk's transcript on appeal. The clerk was requested to include therein 17 affidavits apparently filed in support of appellants' contentions in the trial court proceedings to settle the transcript, together with the minutes of the court concerning their Notice of Correction of Transcripts', 'Notice and Request for Correction of Record Under Rule 8a of the Rules on Appeal dated December 26, 1956', and the 'Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Correction of Record.' The supplemental clerk's transcript was prepared. Then, claiming to act under the provisions of Section 652 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Jarvises presented in this Court this motion to certify the reporter's transcript in accordance with the facts and they have moved this court to order...