Lindgren v. Weaver

California Court of Appeal Jan 14, 1927 No. Docket No. 3113.Published

Before: Plummer

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A party who has failed to timely appeal a judgment cannot circumvent statutory time limits by moving to vacate that judgment and then appealing the denial of that motion, particularly where the trial court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter.

Issues

Whether a party may appeal an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment after the time for appealing the original judgment has expired.
Whether a judgment is void on its face when the trial court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The party aggrieved by a judgment or order must take his appeal from such judgment or order itself, if an appeal therefrom is authorized by statute, and not from a subsequent order refusing to set it aside.”

“The right of appeal and the time therefor fixed in the codes cannot be extended in any such manner.”

“Where it is within the jurisdiction of the court to make an order, the order is not impeachable collaterally, however erroneously the court may have acted.”

PLUMMER, J.

On the fourth day of December, 1924, the plaintiffs filed their petition in the superior court of the county of Merced praying judgment of said court reviewing,

[662]

setting aside, and annulling the actions of C. S. Weaver, as county superintendent of schools of the county of Merced, the trustees of Livingston School District, the trustees of Raisin School District and the board of supervisors of the county of Merced, which acts purported to lead to the union or merger of Livingston and Raisin schools districts, thereafter to be known as Livingston School District, the subsequent exclusion of said Livingston School District also comprising the territory formerly included in the Raisin School District from the Hilmar Colony Union High School District and the annexation of said territory to the Merced Union High School District.

The grounds upon which the merging, excluding, and uniting of said district are sought to be annulled consisted in allegations that proper notices were not given of the election, as required by the Political Code, of the proposed union or merger of the Livingston and Raisin School Districts, thereafter to be known as the Livingston School District

;

that proper notices were not given of the election for the proposed exclusion of the Livingston School District from the Hilmar Colony Union High School District and the annexation of the Livingston School District to the Merced Union High School District, and, further, that the exclusion of the Livingston School District, after having merged with it the territory formerly included in the Raisin School District from the Hilmar Colony Union High School District left said Hilmar Union High School District with an assessed valuation of property less than five million dollars.

Upon the filing of this petition a writ of review was issued, directed to the defendants requiring them to certify to the superior court, all and singular, the actions and proceedings relating to the matters involved, as just herein stated. Pursuant to this order, the defendants made full and complete returns of all and singular the proceedings taken and had and notices given in the matter of the merging or uniting of said two school districts and the exclusion of the territory comprising what was thereafter known as the Livingston School District from the Hilmar Union High School District and its union with the Merced High School District. Trial was had of the issues thus made up and on July 15, 1925, findings, conclusions of law, and judgment were filed by the trial court, and in which judgment it was

Lindgren v. Weaver

AI Brief

PLUMMER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief