Chadwick v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

California Supreme Court Sep 4, 1928 No. Docket No. L.A. 10787.Published

Before: Preston

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court has a mandatory duty to correct clerical errors in findings and judgments, such as computational or transcription mistakes, and that mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel such corrections.

Issues

Whether a trial court has a duty to amend findings and judgments to correct clerical errors in the computation or statement of a sum.
Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a trial court to correct a clerical error in a judgment.

Disposition. writ issued

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Not only has the court power to remedy clerical errors, as distinguished from judicial errors which may be corrected only through motion for new trial or by appeal, but it is a plain duty to remedy them”

“a mistake purely clerical, such as one with respect to the computation or statement of a sum, is an obvious error and though it appears in the findings and conclusions and is carried into the judgment, it may and should be corrected”

PRESTON, J.

Petitioner seeks through this proceeding the issuance of a peremptory writ of

mandamus

directing that respondent Superior Court amend the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and interlocutory judgment entered in a certain condemnation suit in which petitioner was a defendant.

The complaint in said condemnation action was filed in September, 1925. In October, 1926, the referees appointed to make the award of damages filed their report, which with reference to the property here in question read as follows:

“That the referees having viewed said property, have ascertained, assessed and found the compensation proper to be paid to the persons owning or having an interest in each parcel of land sought to be taken, and they respectfully report as follows: . . .

Parcel 67: Value of land taken....................$1190

Severance damages............................... ..

Value of improvements............................ 1746

Total compensation proper to be paid to the defendant, Elizabeth K. Chadwick, successor in interest to the defendant Herbert Kaufman, as the owner of said parcel of land.........................$2936”

At the hearing upon said referees’ report the Superior Court approved “the said award of $2,936 to the defendant Elizabeth K. Chadwick” as above set forth.

The findings of fact and conclusions of law likewise approved and confirmed said report

in toto,

but the value of petitioner’s property was therein listed at the sum of $1,190, instead of $2,936, and later petitioner was notified that a check for said amount, covering her award, was ready for delivery to her. She thereupon moved respondent court to amend said findings of fact and conclusions of law, and also the interlocutory judgment, for the purpose of correcting the amount of the award due her to conform to the sum recommended by said referees, to wit, $2,936, as approved and confirmed by the court. Said motion was predicated upon the affidavit of her attorney in which he averred that he had never received a copy of said findings of fact and con

[165]

Chadwick v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

AI Brief

PRESTON, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief