Woodhouse v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.

VALLÉE, J.

Plaintiff, shortly after he attained the age of 21, 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 14 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 ease. 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.

[24]

Defendants then filed a notice of intention to move for a new trial.1 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.