Moore Grocery Co. v. Los Angeles Nut House

VALENTINE, J.,

pro tem.

This was an action for damages for breach of contract. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff for $1,500 and costs, and from this judgment defendants appeal.

Respondent contends that, upon the record presented, none of the appellants’ contentions can be considered because the reporter’s transcript on file is not properly authenticated in that it was not certified by the trial judge as required by section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The case at bar was tried and decided and the findings and judgment signed by Hon. George P. Buck, a judge of the superior court of San Joaquin County, sitting temporarily in department 24 of the superior court in Los Angeles County, who then returned to San Joaquin County. A motion for a new trial was made in said department 24 and heard by Hon. Walter Guerin, whose regular department it was. Subsequently defendants appealed and noticed the settlement of the reporter’s transcript before the said Judge Guerin in said department 24, whereupon the following entry was made in the clerk’s minutes:

“Moore Grocery Co.

vs.

L. A. Nut House, et al.

Case Called. Hunsaker, Britt & Cosgrove by A. L. Keister appearing for pltff. and E. P. Gerecht by phone consenting the reporter’s transcript is settled, allowed and filed as record in this case,” and the said reporter’s transcript was signed and certified to by said Judge Guerin.

In

Bell

v.

Brigance,

194 Cal. 445 [229 Pac. 27], the court after remarking that section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure does not require that the judge who tried the case shall certify to the truth and correctness of the transcript, says: “But we may assume for reasons at once apparent without stating them, that such was the intention of the legislature.”

[794]