Forgeron Inc. v. Hansen

MUSSELL, J.

This is an action for damages alleged to have been caused by the failure of defendants as general contractors to award plaintiff a subcontract for the plumbing in the construction of a college gymnasium and swimming pool in Bakersfield. A jury trial was had and a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff in accordance with the verdict rendered by the jury. Defendants appealed from the judgment and from an order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The judgment was reversed on appeal, a new trial was ordered, and the order denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was affirmed.

(Forgeron Inc.

v.

Hansen,

149 Cal.App.2d 352 [308 P.2d 406].) A petition for a rehearing was denied April 18, 1957, and respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 20, 1957. On July 9, 1957, the defendants Clifford L. Hansen et al., filed in the Superior Court of Kern County a motion for summary judgment and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. These motions were heard and submitted on July 22, 1957, and on August 9, 1957, the trial court entered judgment granting the motions and ordering that plaintiff take nothing of and from the defendants. Plaintiff appeals from this judgment.

In support of the two motions made in the superior court respondents filed an affidavit of the official court reporter at the former trial as to the testimony of plaintiff Forgeron at said trial and it was stipulated that the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts on appeal in the present appeal be deemed to include the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts filed in connection with the prior appeal herein.

Appellant Forgeron Incorporated filed two counteraffidavits in opposition to these motions. In the affidavit of R. L. Raymond, one of the attorneys for plaintiff, it is stated that he tried the action and participated in the appeal from the judgment therein; that during the period when said action was pending on appeal, and immediately before the hearing on the appeal, he acquired further information confirming the authority of one Christian Jessen to act on behalf of L. H. Hansen and Sons; that he made a motion in this court for

[834]