Slosberg v. Municipal Court of City of Los Angeles, in and for Los Angeles County
| Decision Date | 20 December 1950 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | . Civ. 17697. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California |
Don Marlin, William H. Levit, and Harold Rubins, all of Los Angeles, for appellant.
Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, Wm. E. Lamoreaux, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondent.
Appellant herein, Pauline Lachs Slosberg, and her husband, residents of the State of New York, sought a writ of prohibition in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, to be directed to the Municipal Court of the City of Los Angeles, requiring the latter court to refrain from further proceedings in an action pending against them, upon the ground that they were immune from service of process while temporarily in this state for the purpose of appearing as witnesses in a judicial proceeding. A peremptory writ was denied as to appellant and granted as to her husband. This appeal is from that portion of the judgment denying appellant a peremptory writ.
Appellant and her husband were in this state in connection with a probate proceeding in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in the matter of the estate of Regina Lachs Horn, deceased. Appellant, who is a sister of decedent, had caused a citation to be issued directing Henry Horn, as administrator of the estate, to show cause why he should not include in the inventory certain clothing of the decedent of the approximate value of $1,500.00. Henry Horn is the surviving spouse of Regina Lachs Horn. While appellant and her husband were in Los Angeles for the purpose of appearing as witnesses on the hearing of the citation, they were served with summons and complaint in an action in the municipal court brought by Henry Horn individually, wherein it was charged that the defendants had converted personal property of the plaintiff, consisting of women's clothing and jewelry.
The rule is well settled that nonresidents who come within the territorial limits of the state as parties litigant or to testify as witnesses in judicial proceedings are immune from service of civil process while in actual attendance at the hearing and for a reasonable time in coming and going. Gerard v. Superior Court, 91 Cal.App.2d 549, 205 P.2d 109, and authorities there cited. A recognized exception to the rule, however, is that a nonresident who brings an action in this state against a citizen of this state is not immune from process issued in an action by the defendant seeking relief connected with the subject of the litigation commenced by the plaintiff. See Von Kesler v. Superior Court, 109 Cal.App. 89, 292 P. 544.
Appellant points out here that the municipal court action was commenced by Henry Horn in his individual capacity, and urges that the denial of immunity should be restricted to situations where the subsequent litigation was incidental to and connected with the proceedings originally instituted, and should not be extended to all actions involving the same general questions of property rights involved in the first proceeding. If is further urged that 'the asylum of non-resident immunity should not be invaded except for the dire necessities of strong public policy.'
Appellant's contentions are ably answered in the unpublished decision of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court, a portion of which we quote and adopt as a part of this opinion.
'* * *...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Severn v. Adidas Sportschuhfabriken
...U.S. 740, 53 S.Ct. 658, 77 L.Ed. 1487; Franklin v. Superior Court (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 292, 294, 220 P.2d 8; Slosberg v. Municipal Court (1950) 101 Cal.App.2d 238, 240, 225 P.2d 312; Velkov v. Superior Court (1953) 40 Cal.2d 289, 291, 253 P.2d 25; Russell v. Landau (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 682......
-
Kirtley v. Chamberlin
... ... No. 49559 ... Supreme Court of Iowa ... Nov. 18, 1958 ... is an action at law brought in the Polk County District Court by the Trustee of the Automatic ... Slosberg v. Municipal ... Court, 101 Cal.App.2d 238, ... , 14 A.L.R.2d 1349; Chase National Bank of City of New York v. Lyford, 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 273; ... ...
-
Russell v. Landau
...When he entered the state, he did so both as a prospective party and as a witness and was then immune. Slosberg v. Municipal Court, 101 Cal.App.2d 238, 240, 225 P.2d 312; Gerard v. Superior Court, supra, 91 Cal.App.2d at page 552, 205 P.2d 109; Franklin v. Superior Court, 98 Cal.App.2d 292,......
-
St. John v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County
...the nonresident has made a voluntary appearance.' Von Kesler v. Superior Court, 109 Cal.App. 89, 292 P. 544; Slosberg v. Municipal Court, 101 Cal.App.2d 238, 225 P.2d 312; Velkov v. Superior Court, supra. From the authorities cited above it is clear that where the nonresident is the moving ......