June v. Superior Court
Before: Chipman
Synopsis
Jurisdiction of Superior Court—Premature Appeal from Justice’s Court — Trial by Jury — Judgment not Entered — Dismissal— Mandamus not Allowed.—The superior court has no jurisdiction of an appeal from a justice’s court, in which there was a trial by jury,- and judgment had not been entered in the docket in conformity with the verdict when the appeal was taken; and where such premature appeal was dismissed by the superior court, regardless of the ground of dismissal, mandamus will not lie to compel the superior court to proceed with the trial thereof.
Id.—Duty op Justice to Enter Judgment on Verdict—Form—Entry Essential.—Though the justice is not required to formulate a judgment with the particularity required of judgments entered in the superior court, yet it is made his duty when a trial by jury has been had to enter a judgment at once in conformity with the verdict, and it is provided that no judgment in the justice’s court shall have any effect for any purpose until it is entered. Until some entry has been made in the docket showing that he has rendered a judgment on the verdict, there is -no judgment from which an appeal may be taken.
CHIPMAN, P. J.
Mandate. Plaintiff prays for the writ of this court compelling defendant to set aside its order dismissing the appeal of plaintiff heréin, in a certain action wherein J. J. Smalley is plaintiff and John June, plaintiff herein, is defendant, from an alleged judgment made and entered in the justice’s court of Cloverdale township, Sonoma county, in favor of said Smalley, and directing defendant to proceed to the hearing and trial of said action of
Smalley
v.
June.
It appears that in said action a trial was had by a jury and, on July 20, 1910, the jury rendered the following verdict: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff according to the complaint. J. A. Linde, Foreman. ’ ’ In the justice’s docket there is an entry of July 20, 1910, reciting that the case was called at 9 o’clock A. M. of that day, a jury impaneled to try the case (naming the members) and, “after argument by counsel the case was submitted to the jury; after being out a half hour the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.” No other proceedings were taken by the justice and no other entry was made in his docket except that it appears from defendant’s answer herein that the said justice entered judg
[128]
ment on the verdict on December 30, 1910, and it is conceded that the justice neither rendered nor entered any judgment on the verdict except as last above stated. On July 22, 1910, defendant in that action, plaintiff now here, filed his notice of appeal to the superior court, “on questions of both law and fact,” and on July 23, 1910, filed with said justice an undertaking, reciting the amount of the alleged judgment, to wit, $110.29, principal, and $53, costs, and claiming a stay of execution and obligating the sureties in the sum of $300 and reciting that said sureties “promise on the part of the said appellant that the said appellant will pay the amount of said judgment so appealed from and all costs, if the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed, or the amount of any judgment and all costs that may be recorded against him in the action in said superior, court.”
On July 26, 1910, the justice transmitted to said superior court a certified copy of his docket in said action, and the pleadings, all notices, motions and other papers in said cause, the notice of appeal and the undertaking filed therein, all of which were received by the clerk of said superior court on said last-named day.
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)