Brown v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Nov 25, 1935 No. Civ. 5469Published

Before: Pullen

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court has broad discretion to refuse to enter judgment based on a stipulation if it determines the agreement was based on misleading evidence or would result in injustice, and that mandamus is not an appropriate remedy to review such a discretionary act. Additionally, the court held that a motion for a new trial is premature when no decision has been rendered by the court.

Issues

Whether a trial court may be compelled by mandate to enter judgment pursuant to a stipulation when the court has already exercised its discretion to refuse it.
Whether a motion for a new trial is premature when no decision has been announced by the court.

Disposition. Writ discharged.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Motions of this kind rest very much in the sound discretion of the court below. That discretion is usually exercised liberally and in furtherance of justice.”

“The court can be compelled to act, but having acted, its act cannot be reviewed on mandamus.”

PULLEN, P. J.

Petitioners herein seek by mandate to compel respondent to enter judgment in an action pending in the Superior Court of Sierra County, entitled

Brown et al.

Cleary et al.,

No. 1882, in the records of said court, pursuant to a stipulation for judgment entered into between respective counsel and filed with the clerk of said court. The cause was partially tried before the Honorable Henry B. Neville, the judge presiding, but before the conclusion of the hearing a stipulation for judgment was signed by respective counsel and filed in the ease. Before any action was taken upon the stipulation, however, Judge Neville died. Thereafter Honorable J. M. McMahon was appointed his successor, and he became and now is the judge before whom these matters are pending.

Recently a motion was presented to respondent wherein petitioners formally moved that judgment be entered as provided in the stipulation. In response thereto defendants appeared and opposed the motion, accompanied by affidavits and documentary evidence to the effect that certain witnesses who testified in the cause had given evidence that was untrue, and that said stipulation was entered into by counsel for defendants as the result of such untrue testimony; at the same time defendants moved for a new trial upon all of the statutory grounds. After a full hearing respondent court refused to order judgment in accordance with the stipulation, upon the ground that the compromise was based upon misleading and untrue testimony and evidence, and the stipulation if enforced would amount to a deprivation of defendants of their rights and a miscarriage of justice, and furthermore that petitioners had not acted upon nor changed their position to their detriment nor suffered any loss or damage through or by the stipulation, nor had acted upon nor relied thereon and that the stipulation was merely an executory agreement. In addition to refusing to order judgment on the stipulation the court granted the motion for a new trial.

As to the motion for a new trial, we believe the defendant was premature, and the order of the court granting the same cannot be sustained. A new trial is defined in see

[367]

Brown v. Superior Court

AI Brief

PULLEN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief