H. G. B. Alexander & Co. v. Martz

CRAIG, J.

The respondents purchased from one James Paul a Chrysler automobile of a specified description by serial and motor numbers, for which they instituted this action in replevin against appellant, and took from his possession a Chrysler car bearing different numbers. The defendant by a cross-complaint alleged that he had purchased from one H. B. Washburn the car last mentioned, and that it had passed through the hands of numerous persons and firms named. All of the parties were joined as cross-defendants, from whom damages were demanded upon the ground that appellant was an innocent purchaser for value, and had been defrauded. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed therefrom and from an order denying a new trial. The appeal from said order must be dismissed.

(Estate of Siemers,

202 Cal. 424 [261 Pac. 298].)

As grounds for reversal it is asserted that certain depositions were erroneously received in evidence and that the findings of fact and judgment are not supported by the evidence.

A motion upon five days’ notice was presented for an order shortening the time within which to serve a notice of intention to take depositions upon oral interrogatories

[279]

outside of the state. As a result of such motion it was ordered that notice “shall have been made upon the defendants herein not later than the first day of March, 1927, ’ ’ or a period of time less than that prescribed by section 2025% of the Code of Civil Procedure. This latter order is assigned as error requiring the exclusion of the depositions, and it is argued, but with the citation of no authority, that said section does not permit the shortening of time for proceedings therein mentioned. Section 1°05 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to motions in general, provides that “in all eases the court, or a judge thereof, may prescribe a shorter time.” The obvious purpose of notice in such cases is to enable the opposite party to prepare for and to appear in person or by counsel at the time and place designated by the commission. Appellant does not suggest nor do we think that a stipulation or appearance and cross-examination at variance in this respect with the provisions of the statute would be fatal to its object or prejudicial. The same sections have previously received a construction which recognized the scope of section 1005 as embracing section 2024 et seq.