Bidwell v. Sonoma County Transportation Co. (1918) · DecisionDepot

Bidwell v. Sonoma County Transportation Co.

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

California Court of Appeal Dec 31, 1918 No. Civ. No. 2603.Published

Before: Lennon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the three-month period for deciding a motion for a new trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 660 is not extended by section 12 when the last day falls on a holiday, and that a judicial act is not performed until the order is actually filed.

Issues

Whether the three-month period to decide a motion for a new trial is extended if the final day falls on a holiday.
Whether an order signed by a judge but held by a reporter for filing on a later date constitutes a timely judicial act.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“section 660 is not affected by the provisions of section 12, and that the three months’ period during which a court has power to pass upon a motion for a new trial is not extended if the closing day thereof should fall upon a holiday.”

“the judicial action of the court upon the motion for a new trial was not taken until June 13, 1916, a point of time admittedly too late.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Sonoma County, vacating and setting aside an order granting a new trial. Emmett Seawell, Judge. • Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

LENNON, P. J.

Action for damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff, Mattie Bidwell, wife of S. J. Bidwell, coplaintiff, and for consequential injury flowing therefrom to the latter.

The action was tried by a jury and resulted in a verdict for plaintiffs, which was rendered March 11, 1916. The defendant made a motion for a new trial. The order granting it was filed June 13, 1916. This order was signed by the judge of the trial court on the previous day, and was on said day delivered by him to the shorthand reporter of the court

[331]

with instructions to file the same on the following day, which was done. Thereafter plaintiffs moved to set aside said order upon the ground that it was void upon its face, and that the court had no jurisdiction to make the same, for the reason that it was made more than three months after the entry of the verdict. This motion was granted, and defendant appeals.

The appellant contends that the trial court had no power to set aside its order granting a new trial, and that the remedy of the party aggrieved was by appeal, citing numerous authorities in support of the principle. Respondents admit the validity of the authorities cited, but contend that an exception to the rule therein announced exists in the case of an order void upon its face.

(People

Greene,

74 Cal. 405, [5 Am. St. Rep. 448, 16 Pac.

197]; Kreiss

Hotaling,

96 Cal. 617, [31 Pac. 740] ;

People

Davis,

143 Cal. 675, [77 Pac. 651] ;

Carpenter

Superior Court,

Bidwell v. Sonoma County Transportation Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

LENNON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief