Holbrook & Tarr v. Thomson

California Court of Appeal Dec 14, 1956 No. Civ. 21866Published

Before: White

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant waived his right to a jury trial under section 631 of the Code of Civil Procedure due to a failure to make a timely demand, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief from that waiver.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a jury trial after a failure to make a timely demand.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to relieve the defendant from his waiver of a jury trial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Appellant’s right to jury trial was waived by him under the provisions of section 631 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

“Clearly it was not any error or abuse of discretion on the part of the court which prevented appellant’s having a trial by jury.”

“The record on the appeal now engaging our attention shows no abuse of discretion.”

WHITE, P. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment requiring him to pay $3,250 to his attorneys for work done by them for him from 1950 to 1954 in the ease of

Crowley

Thomson,

Number 579764 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, in representing him as defendant and cross-complainant. They represented him from the time of service of the complaint upon him, through the trial, motions for new trial, appeals to the District Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, tried the case again in the superior court, and collected the judgment in his favor.

The only ground for reversal urged by appellant upon this appeal is that the court was in error in denying him a jury trial. Large portions of the briefs are discussions of matters outside the record. The following is a fair summary of the record on the instant appeal:

- Hildebrand, Bills & McLeod represented appellant by filing and arguing his demurrer to the complaint, filing his answer December 23, 1954, by filing on July 6, 1955, his “Notice of Motion for Demand for Jury Trial,” together with an affidavit of Sheridan Downey, Jr., “That he is one of the attorneys for the defendant in the above entitled matter; that the attorneys for defendant maintain two offices, one in the City of Oakland and one in the City of Los Angeles; that the matter of demanding a jury, payment of jury fees, and setting of this case is handled through the office in Oaldand; that there has been a change in calendar clerks in the Oakland office, and that due to the great number of cases being handled by that office, and due to the change-over from one clerk to another, through inadvertence and mistake demand for a jury trial was overlooked, and no demand for a jury has been filed in the above action. ’ ’ Said attorneys also appeared for defendant at the hearing of the motion, which was denied July 26, 1955.

Defendant, representing himself in propria persona, appeared at the trial September 7, 1955, filed objections to the findings September 23, 1955, filed notice of intention to move for a new trial October 5, 1955.

The record also contains a substitution of Thomas G. Baggott, as attorney for defendant, dated November 1,1955, signed

[802]

Holbrook & Tarr v. Thomson

AI Brief

WHITE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief