Stafford v. Russell

• Decision Date: 17 November 1954
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Guy N. STAFFORD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. G. M. RUSSELL, Joseph R. Vanghan, Mary Pratt, Sanders, John B. Madsen, Anna B. Madsen, William Van Beek, Catherine V. Van Beek, N. Louise Kimball, Bessle S. Weber, Lulu M. Reddish and Beatrice Carr Achstetter, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 20536.

Page 41

276 P.2d 41

128 Cal.App.2d 794

Guy N. STAFFORD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. G. M. RUSSELL, Joseph R. Vanghan, Mary Pratt, Sanders, John B. Madsen, Anna B. Madsen, William Van Beek, Catherine V. Van Beek, N. Louise Kimball, Bessle S. Weber, Lulu M. Reddish and Beatrice Carr Achstetter, Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 20536.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Nov. 17, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1954.

Hearing Denied Jan. 12, 1955.

Guy N. Stafford, in pro. per.

J. R. Vaughan, Lawrence L. Otis, Gilbert E. Harris, James F. Healey, Jr., Harold Arman, Los Angeles, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant's motion to vacate a judgment, the purported grounds being that the original judgment was invalid, that it was in excess of jurisdiction, and that it was secured by extrinsic fraud.

We have given appropriate and sympathetic consideration to the presentation by appellant, despite its inexpertness, but are unable to find any merit to his contentions. He has failed to present any jurisdictional question or persuasive authority compelling any conclusion other than that the trial court properly denied the motion to vacate.

Appellant also appealed from a denial of his request for $2,500 for having been 'illegally required to show cause why he should not be deemed in contempt of court'. The trial court properly denied this request.

No useful purpose will be served by reciting the facts, since they are already incorporated in appellate decisions. Sanders v. Howard Park Co., 86 Cal.App.2d 721, 195 P.2d 898; Coburg Oil Co. v. Russell, 100 Cal.App.2d 200, 223 P.2d 305; Stafford v. Russell, 117 Cal.App.2d 319, 255 P.2d 872.

The history of this litigation is a tribute to the unreasoning persistence of appellant. However, the more than twelve years during which title to real property and an oil lease executed on May 29, 1924, have occupied the time and attention of courts from the Superior to the United States Supreme Court do not reflect favorably upon this appellant's respect for the sanctity of the judicial process. That he may sincerely believe himself aggrieved does not justify continued misuse of courts of law.

In Sanders v. Howard Park Co., supra, decided on July 13, 1948, the District Court of Appeal said, 86 Cal.App.2d at page 722, 195 P.2d at page 899, regarding the instant property: 'Thus by two final judgments the issue involved herein had been adjudicated.' A petition for rehearing was denied, and a petition for hearing in the Supreme Court was denied on September 8, 1948.

Next came Coburg Oil Co. v. Russell, supra, decided October 27, 1950, in which this appellant was also an appealing party. Held the court, 100 Cal.App.2d at page 205, 223 P.2d at page 308: 'Stafford is estopped from now questioning the efficacy of the original judgment by answer or cross-complaint.'

Undaunted, appellant next brought a new action for declaratory relief, accounting, damages and quiet title, which after unfavorable termination in the trial court, on appeal became known as Stafford v. Russell, supra, decided April 14, 1953. There the court stated, 117 Cal.App.2d at page 320, 255 P.2d at page 873: 'In the present case plaintiff reiterates the allegations of the previous two actions and raises the same questions that were previously raised in the prior actions where the rulings were adverse to him. Such adverse rulings are binding upon plaintiff herein and need not further be considered * * *.' Continued the court 117 Cal.App.2d at page 321, 255 P.2d at page 873, 'In the instant case an examination of the record discloses not only that there has not been a miscarriage of justice but that plaintiff has over a period of years in various and sundry proceedings had full and fair trial before the trier of fact, whose findings are conclusions have been affirmed by the District Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in each instance. It is a salutary rule that litigation should not be protracted...