Stafford v. Municipal Court, Los Angeles Judicial Dist., Los Angeles County

• Decision Date: 26 April 1960
• Citation: 180 Cal.App.2d 368,4 Cal.Rptr. 441
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: Guy N. STAFFORD, Petitioner and Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL COURT, LOS ANGELES JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, State of California, Respondent, Grace C. Howard et al., Real Parties In Interest. Civ. 24082.

Page 441

4 Cal.Rptr. 441

180 Cal.App.2d 368

Guy N. STAFFORD, Petitioner and Appellant, v.MUNICIPAL COURT, LOS ANGELES JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, State of California, RespondentGrace C. Howard et al., Real Parties In Interest.

Civ. 24082.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

April 26, 1960.

Rehearing Denied May 24, 1960.

Hearing Denied June 22, 1960.

Guy N. Stafford, in pro. per.

Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, and Donald K. Byrne, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondent.

VALLE'E, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment denying a writ of mandate sought to compel the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District to vacate a judgment rendered by that court.

In 1956Grace C. Howard, the real party in interest, brought an action against petitioner on a promissory note and for goods, wares, and merchandise.Petitioner answered.After trial, judgment was rendered for petitioner.Grace C. Howard appealed.The appellate department of the superior court reversed, with directions to the municipal court to enter judgment for Grace C. Howard as prayed.Thereafter the municipal court complied with the directions of the appellate department.

In November 1958petitioner moved the municipal court to vacate its judgment on the ground it was void and the appellate department lacked jurisdiction to order the trial court to enter judgment for Mrs. Howard.The motion was denied.Petitioner then applied to the superior court for an alternative writ of mandate to compel the municipal court to vacate the Howard judgment against him.The judgment of the superior court was that 'the petition be stri[c]ken from the file, and that no writ, alternate or otherwise, shall issue.'Petitioner appeals.

In denying the petition, the superior court stated:

'In respect to the Ex Parte application for an alternate writ of mandate.

'It affirmatively appears from the face of the petition that the judgment in the case entitled Grace C. Howard, et al. vs. Guy N. Stafford, Los Angeles Municipal CourtNo. 365-854, is final; and the court having reference to the file of this court respecting same (Civ. A. 9539) finds therein in the settled statement there presented to the Appellate Department of this court; 'The plaintiffs(Howards) presented the original of the promissory note sued on in the case; that the defendant(Stafford) stipulated that this was a true and correct copy of the original he had executed and mailed to the plaintiffs and stipulated there was no payment.The court accepted this into evidence as plaintiffs' Exhibit 1'; The trial court followed the directions of the Appellate Department in judgment for the plaintiffs as prayed.

'It is apparent therefore, that the petition now presented is an attempt to relitigate a final judgment; that it is sham and vexacious.

'It is therefore ordered that the petition be stri[c]ken from the file, and that no writ, alternate or otherwise, shall issue.(Neal v. Bank of America, (1949) 93 C[al.] A[pp.] 2d -682 )Lincoln v. Didak(1958)162 [Cal.App.2d 625, 328 P.2d 498])'

Petitioner says the appellate department exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the municipal court to enter judgment as prayed by Mrs. Howard; the municipal court was not bound to obey the order of the appellate department; and the municipal court exceeded its jurisdiction in conforming to the directions of the appellate department.The points have no merit.

On an appeal...