Weinstock-Nichols Co. v. Courtney

JAMES, J.

A technical question only is presented on this appeal taken from a judgment entered against the defendants. It is presented on the judgment-roll.

Appellants contend that the superior judge of Inyo County, who sat at the trial in Los Angeles County, was without power to settle and sign the findings in the county of Ills residence. The right of a judge of one county to make up and sign findings in a county other than that in which the trial has been had has long been settled by the decisions of our supreme court.

(Comstock Q. M. Co.

v.

Superior Court,

57 Cal. 625;

Walter

v.

Merced Academy Assoc.,

126 Cal. 582, [59 Pac. 136];

Estudillo

v.

Security Loan etc. Co.,

158 Cal. 66, [109 Pac. 884].) Appellants admit the law is so established, but contend that by reason of an amendment made

[446]

to section 634 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the legislature of 1913 [Stats. 1913, p. 58], the signing of the findings constituted a judicial act, which of necessity to be valid should be performed at the place where the cause was pending. The amendment referred to provides as follows: “In all cases where the court directs a party to prepare findings, a copy of said proposed findings shall be served upon all the parties to the action at least five days before findings shall be signed by the court, and the court shall not sign any findings therein prior to the expiration of such five days. ’ ’ How this amendment made the signing of the findings any more or any less of a judicial act than it had theretofore been we are unable to comprehend. The amendment relates merely to steps to be taken where the court requires counsel to prepare findings ; no doubt for the purpose of aiding the court by allowing time within which suggestions may be made by the opposite party. In the end, the court would not be bound to enter either the offered findings or adopt any of the suggestions made, and might discard the whole and proceed to make up its own findings, as theretofore permitted to be done. The supreme court has said in the cases cited that the findings become effective as a decision only when filed, and that it matters not where the judge deliberates upon the same, or where he attaches his signature thereto, so long as the findings are filed in the proper court by the proper officer; that , the judgment entered by the clerk, which follows, will then be regular. If the legislature had any intention of requiring a nonresident judge to make his findings in the county where the trial is had, it could very easily have so directly provided. But no such intention can be gathered from the terms of the amendment quoted.