Woodhouse v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1952
• Citation: 245 P.2d 701,112 Cal.App.2d 22
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: WOODHOUSE v. PACIFIC ELECTRIC RY. CO. et al. Civ. 18788.

Page 701

245 P.2d 701

112 Cal.App.2d 22

WOODHOUSE v. PACIFIC ELECTRIC RY. CO. et al.

Civ. 18788.

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

June 25, 1952.

Rehearing Denied July 10, 1952.

Hearing Denied Aug. 21, 1952.

C. W. Cornell, Oscar O. Collins and Randolph Karr, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Lasher B. Gallagher, Henry E. Kappler and Sampson & Dryden, Los Angeles, for respondent.

VALLEE, Justice.

Plaintiff, shortly after he attained the age of twenty-one, brought this action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of the negligence of defendants on September 29, 1938, when he was fourteen years of age. In their answer, among other defenses, defendants pleaded two pleas in bar, (1) that on July 7, 1939, on petition of plaintiff's father, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County by written order approved a compromise of plaintiff's claim against defendants on account of the injuries described in the complaint; that pursuant thereto defendant railway company paid plaintiff's father $500 on behalf of plaintiff, and plaintiff's father executed a release of all claims against the defendants; (2) that on March 30, 1946, plaintiff moved the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to set aside the order of July 7, 1939, on the ground among others that the court was without jurisdiction to make the order; that the motion was denied. The answer prayed that plaintiff take nothing and that an injunction be issued against plaintiff enjoining him from prosecuting this action and from pressing or filing any claims, action, or actions against defendants arising out of the accident.

Pursuant to section 597 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court proceeded to the trial of the special defenses before the trial of any other issue in the case. At the conclusion of such trial the court caused a minute order to be made overruling and denying the pleas in bar, filed a memorandum for decision, made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and rendered an interlocutory judgment adjudging that the release was not binding on plaintiff, that the court was without jurisdiction to approve the compromise, and that plaintiff is entitled to maintain and prosecute the action.

Defendants then filed a notice of intention to move for a new trial. Defendants also filed a notice of appeal from the interlocutory judgment and from the order and judgment refusing to grant the injunction requested and prayed for. No mention was made of an injunction in the minute order deciding the issues made by the pleas in bar, or in the interlocutory judgment. Thereafter the court dismissed the motion for a new trial on the ground it was premature and vacated the interlocutory judgment on the ground it was not authorized by section 597 and was inadvertently entered. Defendants then filed a notice of appeal from (1) the memorandum for decision, (2) the findings of fact, (3) the conclusions of law, (4) the interlocutory judgment, (5) the minute order dismissing the motion for a new trial and vacating the interlocutory judgment, and (6) the minute order overruling the pleas in bar and deciding them in favor of the plaintiff.

The various matters appealed from are nonappealable and the appeals must be dismissed.

Section 597 provides: 'When the answer pleads that the action is barred by the statute of limitations, or by a prior judgment, or that another action is pending upon the same cause of action, or sets up any other defense not involving the merits of the plaintiff's cause of action but constituting a bar or ground of abatement to the prosecution thereof, the court may, upon the motion of either party, proceed to the trial of such special defense or defenses before the trial of any other issue in the case, and if the decision of the court, or the verdict of the jury upon any special defense so tried (other than the defense of another action pending) is in favor of the defendant pleading the same, judgment for such defendant shall thereupon be entered and no trial of other issues in the action shall be had unless such judgment shall be reversed on appeal or otherwise set aside or vacated; and where the defense of another action pending is sustained (and no other special defense is sustained) an interlocutory judgment shall be entered in favor of the defendant pleading the same to the effect that no trial of other issues shall be had until the final determination of such other action, and the plaintiff may appeal from such interlocutory judgment in the same manner and within the same time as is now or may be hereafter provided by law for appeals from judgments. If the decision of the court, or the verdict of the...