Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union

DOOLING, J.

The defendant union appeals from a summary judgment. The action was on a foreign judgment entered against appellant union in the District Court for the Territory of Alaska. The nature of the proceeding is fully disclosed in the opinions of the United States Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of the United States affirming the Alaska judgment.

(International Longshoremen’s, etc. Union

v.

Juneau Spruce Corp.,

189 F.2d 177;

Interna

[146]

tional L. & W. U.

v.

Juneau Corp.,

342 U.S. 237 [72 S.Ct. 235, 96 L.Ed. 275].)

The action was on a money judgment. We cannot agree that an action on a money judgment is not “an action to recover upon a debt or upon a liquidated demand” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c, authorizing the entry of summary judgments in actions of that character. A judgment for a specific sum of money has always been treated as a debt by the courts.

(Miller

v.

Murphy,

186 Cal. 344, 347 [199 P. 525];

Grotheer

v.

Meyer Rosenberg, Inc.,

11 Cal.App.2d 268, 272-273 [53 P.2d 996];

Schwartz

v.

California Claim Service,

52 Cal.App.2d 47, 54 [125 P.2d 883].) A judgment for alimony that is subject to future modification stands on a different basis, which explains the holding in