Wilson v. Durkee
Before: Shaw
Synopsis
APPEAL from a judgment- of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Frederick W. Houser, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
SHAW, J.
This is an action based upon a judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant by the supreme court of the state of Vermont.
[493]
Judgment went for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals upon the judgment-roll accompanied by a bill of exceptions.
The existence of the judgment alleged in the complaint was by the answer denied. To prove the allegation plaintiff offered in evidence an exemplified copy of a document purporting to constitute the record of the proceedings had in the courts of Vermont and the judgment herein sued upon.
No evidence was offered tending to prove the laws of Vermont. In the absence of such proof, the laws of another state will be presumed to be the same as our own, and this rule applies to statutory as well as the common law.
(Cavallaro
v.
Texas Ry. Co.,
110 Cal. 348, [52 Am. St. Rep. 94, 42 Pac. 918];
O’Sullivan
v.
Griffith,
153 Cal. 502, [95 Pac. 873, 96 Pac. 323].) Section 668 of the Code of Civil Procedure of California provides that “The clerk must keep, with the records of the court, a book to be called the ‘ judgment-book, ’ in which judgments must be entered”; and section 664 of the same code provides that “in no case is the judgment effectual for any purpose until so entered.” The sole contention of appellant is that the exemplified copy of the record received in evidence was insufficient to justify the finding of the court that the judgment was duly made and given as alleged in the complaint, for the reason that such copy of the record fails to show that the judgment was entered in accordance with the provisions of the code above cited. The only question, therefore, presented for consideration is whether the exemplified copy of the record received in evidence sufficiently shows the entry of the judgment, which appears to have been rendered by the supreme court on an appeal prosecuted from the county court of Windsor County. That portion of the certificate and copy of the proceedings which seems pertinent to .this inquiry is as follows:
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)