Duke v. Justice's Court

California Court of Appeal Dec 30, 1940 No. Civ. 11209Published

Before: Knight

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a writ of prohibition was properly denied because the judicial act was already completed, the appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal, and the justice's court possessed statutory authority to enforce the judgment.

Issues

Whether a writ of prohibition can be used to restrain a judicial act that has already been performed.
Whether a writ of prohibition is available when an adequate remedy by appeal exists.
Whether a justice's court in a city of over 30,000 residents has jurisdiction to enforce a judgment under section 685 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a writ of prohibition may be resorted to only as a method of restraining the exercise of judicial functions; that is, to prevent the commission of a future act.”

“a writ of prohibition will not lie where there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy by way of appeal”

KNIGHT, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered after trial on the merits denying him a peremptory writ of prohibition. The appeal was taken on the judgment roll, and

[179]

the facts appearing therefrom are these: On June 5, 1933, a money judgment was entered against appellant in the Justice’s Court of the City of Berkeley, from which no appeal was taken; and on March 14, 1939, the judgment creditor presented a motion based on section 685 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have said judgment enforced and carried into execution. Appellant contested the motion, and at the conclusion of the hearing the motion was granted. On the following day, March 15, 1939, appellant instituted this proceeding in prohibition to restrain said justice’s court and the presiding justice thereof from taking any further proceedings in the matter; but on the same day also, said justice’s court, pursuant to the order granting said motion, issued a writ of execution, which was still outstanding at the time of the trial herein. The writ was issued, so the trial court found, without knowledge of the pendency of the prohibition proceeding.

Respondent, Justice’s Court of the City of Berkeley, is a justice’s court of class A (sec. 81, Code Civ. Proc.). Its territorial jurisdiction extends over the entire city, which at all times herein mentioned had a population of more than 30,000; and section 685 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows: “In all cases the judgment may be enforced or carried into execution after the lapse of five years from the date of its entry, by leave of the court, upon motion, and after due notice to the judgment debtor accompanied by an affidavit or affidavits setting forth the reasons for failure to proceed in compliance with the provisions of section 681 of this code. ...” The theory upon which appellant sought to obtain the writ of prohibition was that said justice’s court was without jurisdiction to entertain or grant a motion under the provisions of the foregoing section.

We are of the opinion that the trial court’s decision denying the writ is sustainable on any one of three grounds: First, a writ of prohibition may be resorted to only as a method of restraining the exercise of judicial functions; that is, to prevent the commission of a future act. It cannot be used to serve the purpose of a writ of

Duke v. Justice's Court

AI Brief

KNIGHT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief