Mazuran v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Feb 15, 1927 No. Docket No. 5468.Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the order dismissing the appeal was void because the superior court should have considered the pleadings or judgment-roll, which were sufficient to present the questions of law raised by the demurrer.

Issues

Whether a statement of the case is essential for an appeal from a municipal court on questions of law and fact.
Whether the order dismissing the appeal was void.
Whether the statutory requirements for appeals from municipal courts are unconstitutional.

Disposition. annulled

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is not the policy of the law nor can we say that the legislature intended to require a useless act.”

“Inasmuch, therefore, as the term “docket” cannot be applied literally to appeals from the municipal court, it would seem to us that in order to make sections 975 and 977 of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable at all to appeals from the municipal court that it is necessary to adopt a liberal construction”

“Having arrived at the conclusion that the order sought to be reviewed in this proceeding is void, it would serve no useful purpose and would be premature for us to enter upon a discussion of the constitutional question raised by the petitioner.”

THOMPSON, J.

By this application it is sought to annul an order dismissing an appeal from the municipal court of

[352]

Los Angeles. An action was commenced in the justice’s court of Los Angeles township, but before trial the justice’s court had been superseded by the municipal court and the trial was had in the last-named court. Also it appears from the return to the writ that a demurrer to the complaint was heard in the municipal court. Two of the defendants in the action (the petitioners here), being dissatisfied with the judgment, filed their notice of appeal on June 1, 1926, and within the time allowed by law. The notice of appeal stated that “the appeal is taken on questions of both law and fact.” By the provisions of section 976 of the Code of Civil Procedure no statement of the case is necessary in appeals from the justice’s court on questions of both law and fact. Under the provisions of section 975 of the same code, however, when the appeal is taken on questions of law alone it is necessary to prepare, serve, and file a statement of the case which shall “contain the grounds upon which the party intends to rely upon the appeal and so much of the evidence, as may be necessary to explain the grounds, and no more.” By section 984 of the Code of Civil Procedure section 975 is made applicable to appeals from the municipal court, while section 976 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not, the legislature having also provided by section 983 of the same code that appeals from the municipal court shall be on questions of law alone. The petitioners here did not prepare a statement of the case and on August 16, 1926, the plaintiff in the action made a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the statement had not been served and filed. The respondent court made its order dismissing the appeal.

In brief the petitioners’ contention is that a statement of the ease is not essential to the appeal and that if a statement be necessary, the requirement is unconstitutional because it is discriminatory, special, and does not have a uniform operation. The foundation of their argument that it is unconstitutional is that appeals are allowed to the superior court from the justice’s court on questions of fact with a trial

de novo

in the superior court, in which case no statement of the case is required.

Mazuran v. Superior Court

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief