Stafford v. Municipal Court

VALLÉE, J.

Appeal from a judgment denying a writ of mandate sought to compel the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District to vacate a judgment rendered by that court.

In 1956 Grace C. Howard, the real party in interest, brought an action against petitioner on a promissory note and for goods, wares, and merchandise. Petitioner answered. After trial, judgment was rendered for petitioner. Grace C. Howard appealed. The appellate department of the superior court reversed, with directions to the municipal court to enter judgment for Grace C. Howard as prayed. Thereafter the municipal court complied with the directions of the appellate department.

In November 1958 petitioner moved the municipal court to vacate its judgment on the ground it was void and the appellate department lacked jurisdiction to order the trial court to enter judgment for Mrs. Howard. The motion was denied. Petitioner then applied to the superior court for an alternative writ of mandate to compel the municipal court to vacate the

[370]

Howard judgment against him. The judgment of the superior court was that “the petition be strife]ken from the file, and that no writ, alternate or otherwise, shall issue.” Petitioner appeals.

In denying the petition, the superior court stated:

“In respect to the Ex Parte application for an alternate writ of mandate.

“It affirmatively appears from the face of the petition that the judgment in the case entitled Grace C. Howard, et al. vs. Guy N. Stafford, Los Angeles Municipal Court No. 365-854, is final; and the court having reference to the file of this court respecting same (Civ. A. 9539) finds therein in the settled statement there presented to the Appellate Department of this court; ‘The plaintiffs (Howards) presented the original of the promissory note sued on in the case; that the defendant (Stafford) stipulated that this was a true and correct copy of the original he had executed and mailed to the plaintiffs and stipulated there was no payment. The court accepted this into evidence as plaintiffs ’ Exhibit 1 ’; The trial court followed the directions of the Appellate Department in judgment for the plaintiffs as prayed.

“It is apparent therefore, that the petition now presented is an attempt to relitigate a final judgment; that it is sham and vexacious.