Gates v. Lane
Before: Crockett
Synopsis
Enjoining Justice’s Judgment.—If a judgment rendered by a Justice of the Peace is void on its face, a suit in equity cannot be maintained to restrain its enforcement by execution, even if the execution is issued by the County Clerk on a copy of the judgment docketed with him.
Power of Justice over his Judgments.—A Justice of the Peace has power to recall an execution issued by him on a void judgment, and stay further proceedings, even if the judgment has been docketed in the office of the County Clerk and the execution has been issued by the Clerk. Limitation of Suit to Cancel Note.—If the maker of a promissory note makes a parol agreement with the holder to furnish him goods, or perform services for him to the amount of the note, and furnishes the goods, or performs the services, and the value of the same equals the amount due on the note; after the statutory period has expired, during which an action can be brought for the goods or services, the maker cannot sue in equity, to have the note cancelled or surrendered.
By the Court Crockett, J.: The demurrer was properly sustained. If the judgment obtained against the plaintiffs was void on the face of the proceedings in the Justice’s Court for want of jurisdiction, as the complaint avers it to have been, these plaintiffs had an adequate remedy, by motion in that Court, to arrest the execution and stay further process on the judgment. (Logan v. Hillegass, 16 Cal. 201; Comstock v. Clemens, 19 Id. 77; Sanchez v. Carriaga, 31 Id. 179; Murdock v. De Vries, 37 Id. 527.) Nor did the fact that the execution was issued by the County Clerk, on a transcript of the Justice’s docket filed in his office, obstruct the remedy by motion in the Justice’s Court. Though issued by the Clerk, the execution was subject to be recalled by the Justice who rendered the judgment.
So much of the complaint as seeks the surrender and cancellation of the note, on the ground of the parol agreement as to pasturage, was barred by the Statute of Limitations at the commencement of the action.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice WALLACE did not express an opinion.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)