Apartment & Hotel Financing Corp. v. Will

CRAIG, J.

The city of Los Angeles instituted proceedings in eminent domain against the petitioner herein and others, and, issue having .been joined, it was stipulated that referees be appointed by the court to determine the issues and report findings and judgment. Thereafter it was ordered that the respondents take the evidence to determine the issues and report to the court in writing their findings and a judgment.

Another suit was pending between Renno Brush and the petitioner herein, asserting a lien upon the leasehold interest of the latter in certain of the property sought to be condemned.

Hearings were conducted by respondents as referees, at which all the parties appeared, and a written report was

[278]

filed. ‘Certain of the defendants excepted to the report, which exceptions were heard over the objection of petitioner, and the trial court ordered that said report be approved and confirmed in all respects except as to the value of the leasehold interest of the petitioning corporation, the interest of defendant Brush therein, and the leasehold interest of defendant Buchanan. The order of confirmation recited that the stipulated reference was general, and that the referees should therefore report their findings, conclusions of law and judgment separately, after determining the issues; that they had made no findings or conclusions as to Brush’s interest; that their findings on the leasehold values were meager, and were based upon evidence “not warranted by law.” The case was resubmitted to respondents for further proceedings, and petitioner moved to vacate and set aside this order, which motion was denied; petitioner now seeks a writ of prohibition against further proceedings of the referees, contending that their authority terminated with the filing of their report, and that they lost jurisdiction.

Respondents object to this proceeding upon the ground that they are not a tribunal, board, or person exercising judicial functions, within the contemplation of section 1102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that the “writ of prohibition is the counterpart of the writ of mándate. It arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, or person exercising judicial functions, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board or person.”