Howell v. Howell
Before: McKinstry
Synopsis
Deposition-—Order Shortening True of Notice.—An order shortening the time for which notice of the taking of a deposition shall he given must designate a definite time of notice.
Id.—Service of Notice Forthwith.—An order providing for the taking of a deposition at a certain hour of the day on which the order was made, and directing a service of the notice “forthwith,” is not sufficiently definite.
McKinstry, J. On the 13th of December the plaintiff herein presented to the judge a certain affidavit, upon which, on the same day (at what hour of the day does not appear), the judge made the order following :
“ Good cause being shown to me therefor, by the foregoing affidavit, it is ordered that the deposition and testimony of the witness therein named be taken before William Harney, Esq., a notary public in the city and county of San Francisco, in the State of California, at No. 7 Stockton street,' in the city and county of San Francisco, on the 13th day of December, 1878, at four o’clock in the afternoon of that day, and that a copy of said affidavit, and of this order, be served on the defendant’s attorney forthwith.”
A copy of the affidavit and order, together with notice that the deposition of the witness would be taken at the time and place and before the officer mentioned in the order, was served on the attorney for defendant at 8 o’clock p. M.
The certificate of the notary is to the effect that the deposition was taken “ at the time mentioned in the order,” to wit, on the said 13th day of December “ between the hours of 2 p. M. and 5 p. M. of that day.”
At the trial, the defendant objected to the reading of the dep[391]osition, on the ground, amongst others, that no sufficient notice of the taking of the deposition had been served.
If the order of the judge was such as he had no power to make, notice of less than five days was not sufficient.
Section 2031 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the deposition of a witness may be taken, on serving notice upon the adverse party: “ Such notice must be at least five days * * * unless, for cause shown, a judge, by order, prescribe a shorter time” In the case before us, the judge did not prescribe any time of notice less than five days. The plaintiff was directed to serve the notice “ forthwith.” The statute prescribes a definite time of notice in ordinary cases, and authorizes the judge, for cause, to prescribe another and shorter time. “ Forthwith.—As soon as by reasonable exertion, confined to the object, it may be accomplished. This is the import of the term ; it varies, of course, with every particular case.” (Bouvier, and cases by him cited.) Hence, when the order is to serve forthwith, it does not prescribe any definite time.
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)