Myers v. Superior Court (1920) · DecisionDepot

Myers v. Superior Court

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Feb 19, 1920 No. Civ. No. 3289.Published

Before: Thomas

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court annulled the order of commitment, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to imprison the petitioner for contempt because the evidence showed the petitioner did not possess the assets to satisfy the judgment and the commitment order failed to meet statutory requirements.

Issues

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to order the petitioner's imprisonment for contempt when the evidence showed the petitioner lacked the ability to comply with the order.
Whether the order of commitment was fatally defective for failing to include necessary findings of fact required by the Code of Civil Procedure.

Disposition. annulled

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In either case, the court was without jurisdiction to make the order in question.”

“To permit the imprisonment here imposed, under the facts disclosed by the record before us, would be to sanction a violation of the state and federal constitutions prohibiting the imprisonment of any person for a debt in a civil action”

“The order made does not measure up to these requirements.”

Synopsis

APPLICATION for a Writ of Certiorari to review an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Grant Jackson, Judge, committing a judgment debtor to jail for contempt. Writ issued.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

THOMAS, J.

This is an application for a writ of review. It is alleged in the petition that on the twenty-seventh day. of December, 1918, one A. L. Gore recovered judgment

[207]

in the superior court of Los Angeles County, in a civil action on a certain promissory note, against petitioner herein; that said judgment is legal and valid; that petitioner has not appealed therefrom or. made any motion to set the same aside, and that it is in full force and effect. That on April 14, 1919, pursuant to an order for his appearance in a supplementary proceeding in said case before the Honorable Grant Jackson, Judge, petitioner appeared and testified in behalf of the plaintiff in that action; that said proceeding was continued from said day to November 18, 1919, when he again testified on behalf of said plaintiff, transcript of which latter testimony is set out in full in the petition, and that thereafter the court made the following order:

“This supplemental proceeding came on regularly to be heard the 18th day of November, 1919, and thereafter regularly continued from time to time until February 5, 1920, Messrs. Schweitzer & Hutton and H. L. Widman, Esq., appearing as counsel for plaintiff, and Willedd Andrews, Esq., as counsel for defendant, and after full and complete examination of said defendant as to any property or money in his hands or control which said defendant refuses to apply to the satisfaction of said judgment, the court finds,

“That said defendant now has in his possession and under his control, $15,000.00 in cash and securities in the form of Canadian War Bonds and sufficient to satisfy said judgment, and has sufficient property out of which and he is- able to pay the judgment herein,

“Now therefore on motion of said plaintiff “It is ordered that said defendant forthwith pay to the clerk of this court so much of the money in his possession as aforesaid as necessary to satisfy said judgment, and

“It is further ordered that until said defendant so apply said money to the satisfaction of said judgment, that he be committed to the custody of the sheriff of Los Angeles County, California, and that he be confined in the county jail until such time as he complies with the order of this court.

Myers v. Superior Court

AI Brief

Synopsis

THOMAS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief