Heaton v. Justice's Court, Etc.

California Court of Appeal Feb 4, 1937 No. Civ. 10225Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of a writ of mandate, holding that the trial court's finding that the disputed rider was not part of the original judgment was supported by evidence, and that a writ of mandate will not issue to enforce a portion of a judgment that is clearly erroneous.

Issues

Whether the trial court's finding that the typewritten rider was not part of the justice's court judgment was supported by the evidence.
Whether a writ of mandate should issue to enforce a portion of a judgment that is legally erroneous.
Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence without a showing of reasonable diligence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court’s finding number II was to the effect that there was no evidence that the typewritten rider pasted on the docket was any portion of the judgment rendered by the justice’s court.”

“No authority is cited, and we know of none, that would require a court to issue a prerogative writ to enforce a portion of a judgment which is clearly erroneous.”

STURTEVANT, J.

The petitioner, hereinafter called the plaintiff, applied to the superior court for a peremptory writ of mandate. After hearing had the trial court made findings against him and ordered judgment entered on said findings against the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff made a motion to set aside said judgment and to set aside the submission for the purpose of introducing further evidence. The trial court made orders denying said motions. From the judgment and from said orders the plaintiff appealed. We do not understand the plaintiff is, at this time, presenting the appeals from the two orders made after the judgment was ordered.

On May 23, 1933, Frank C. MacDonald commenced an action in the Justice’s Court of Second Township, County of San Mateo, against this plaintiff and his wife. The complaint alleged a claim for damages for a breach of contract. After a trial had, on December 19, 1933, the court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against both defendants. On July 29, 1934 (1935?), an execution was issued and the same was levied on a Dodge coupe owned by this plaintiff, Jennison Heaton, one of the defendants in said action. On August 3, 1935, Jennison Heaton appeared in said justice’s court and made a motion for an order releasing said property from said levy. The motion was denied. Later he commenced this proceeding.

In his petition filed in this proceeding the plaintiff alleged:

“III.

“(a) Thereafter, a trial of said action was had in said Court without a jury, before Percy W. Jackson, Esq., then Justice of the Peace of said Court and. Township, and on December 19, 1933, judgment was rendered and entered in said action by said Justice of the Peace, as appears by Docket

[120]

No. 12, Case No. 5796, at 496 in the Docket of said Court, as follows:

“(b) ‘It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff do have and recover of and from the defendants Jennison Heaton and Beulah Heaton the sum of $299.99 damages and no costs. (The said Judgment is a limited one— to be satisfied out of the community property. Separate property of either spouse shall be exempt from satisfaction of this Judgment, except such separate property as either spouse may have received during their marriage and while living together, by gift from the other spouse.) ’

Heaton v. Justice's Court, Etc.

AI Brief

STURTEVANT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief