Graziani v. Denny (1917) · DecisionDepot

Graziani v. Denny

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

California Supreme Court Jan 4, 1917 No. S. F. No. 7817.Published

Before: Sloss

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a judge pro tempore does not possess exclusive jurisdiction over a case, and a regularly elected judge of the same superior court retains the authority to hear motions in that action.

Issues

Whether a judge pro tempore has exclusive jurisdiction over a case to the exclusion of a regularly elected judge of the same superior court.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The jurisdiction of causes is vested by the constitution in the court, not in any particular judge or department thereof.”

“there is nothing in the constitutional provision which declares that his power shall be exclusive, or that it shall be in any way greater than that of elected judges.”

“there is no ground for holding that any judge of that court is without jurisdiction to entertain such motion.”

Synopsis

APPLICATION for a Writ of Prohibition directed to a judge of the Superior Court of Sonoma County.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

SLOSS, J.

This is an application for a writ of prohibition against Honorable Thomas C. Denny, one of the judges of the superior court of Sonoma County.

On September 28, 1915, the petitioner, Celia Graziani, commenced a divorce action in said superior court against her husband, Emil Graziani. The defendant filed his answer, and there was also filed a stipulation, signed by said Celia and Emil Graziani, plaintiff! and defendant in the action, that L. E. Fulwider, a member of the bar, duly admitted to practice in all the courts of the state, might act and proceed in said cause as judge

pro tempore.

Mr. Fulwider duly qualified as such judge

pro tempore,

and proceeded to hear and try said action of divorce. Having

[177]

heard evidence, he signed, made, and entered as such judge

pro tempore

an interlocutory judgment or decree determining that the plaintiff, Celia Graziani, was entitled to a divorce from said Emil Graziani, and awarding the custody of the minor children of the marriage to the said plaintiff. All of these proceedings, from the filing of the complaint to the decree, were had within the space of a single day.

On the fifteenth day of March, 1916, within six months after the entry of the interlocutory decree, E'mil Graziani filed in said superior court a notice directed to Celia Graziani and her attorney, notifying them that he would, at a given time, move said superior court for an order setting aside, vacating, and annulling the interlocutory decree of divorce, upon the grounds that the court acting, or presuming to act, through said L. E. Pulwider as judge

pro tempore,

had no jurisdiction, and that the judgment had been obtained through collusion and fraud. At the time specified in the notice, said Emil Graziani, by his attorneys, appeared in said superior court, and requested the respondent, a duly elected, qualified, and acting judge of said court, to hear said motion. The plaintiff, Celia Graziani, objected to any hearing in said action by Judge Denny on the ground that L. E. Pulwider, as judge

Graziani v. Denny

AI Brief

Synopsis

SLOSS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief