Harris v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Mar 28, 1927 No. Docket No. 5597.Published

Before: Houser

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial judge's denial of a motion for change of venue based on alleged bias is conclusive when the judge files a counter-affidavit denying the allegations, and that an instrument is legally filed when deposited with the proper officer regardless of whether it was formally endorsed.

Issues

Whether a trial judge's finding on his own disqualification due to bias is conclusive when supported by a counter-affidavit.
Whether an affidavit is legally filed if it was delivered to the proper officer but lacks a formal filing endorsement.

Disposition. Writ discharged

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under such circumstances, the finding of the trial judge, on the question of his own disqualification, is conclusive on appeal.”

“When the instrument is deposited with the proper officer, at the proper place for the purpose of filing, in contemplation of law it is deemed to have been filed.”

HOUSER, J.

This proceeding is founded upon an alleged “prejudice and bias” of Honorable Hugh J. Crawford as Judge of the Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles against petitioner which, if established, would prevent petitioner from having a fair and impartial trial in an action now pending in said court.

Prior to the filing of the petition herein petitioner, as plaintiff in the action, made and presented his motion therein for “an order transferring the trial ... to a judge . . . other than the Honorable Hugh J. Crawford, . . . ” The grounds- specified in the notice of motion were the prejudice and bias of said judge which, as alleged, would result as hereinbefore indicated. The motion was supported by an affidavit which specified the particular facts from which it was claimed by the plaintiff that the prejudice of the said judge against him would appear and legally follow. In reply to such affidavit Judge Crawford made and filed his counter-affidavit in which, in force and effect, he completely and specifically denied each of the material facts set forth in the affidavit presented by the plaintiff, and, in addition thereto, alleged that “he has never had, nor does he now have, any feeling of animosity toward said plaintiff and never has had and does not now have any prejudice or bias or dislike or contempt against and concerning the said plaintiff, and alleges that he is qualified in all respects to act as presiding judge over the trial of this action and that the said plaintiff has had and will continue to have a fair and impartial trial and hearing herein before affiant.”

On the hearing of the motion it was denied.

The law relating to such a condition as is hereinbefore set forth is clearly stated in the syllabus in the case of

Estudillo

Security Loan & Trust Co.,

158 Cal. 66 [109 Pac. 884], as follows: “An order refusing a change of venue, requested on the ground of the alleged bias and prejudice of the trial judge, will not be reviewed on appeal, when the statements contained in the moving affidavits tend

[90]

Harris v. Superior Court

AI Brief

HOUSER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief