Myers v. McDonald
Before: Thornton
Synopsis
Appeal from certain judgments of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from, nn order refusing to set aside a judgment.
The action was brought to procure the cancellation of a certain promissory note, and for an injunction against its transfer. The complaint alleged that the note was executed in pursuance of an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant M. L. McDonald, whereby the latter, in consideration of the giving of the note, and of the promise by the plaintiff to render certain services as superintendent of the Santa Rosa Water Works Company and the Santa Rosa Street Railway Company, promised to and did deliver to the plaintiff 275 shares of the capital stock of the Santa Rosa Water Works Company, and guaranteed that the stock would within a certain time sell in the market and be of the value of two hundred dollars a share. The complaint further alleged a breach of the guaranty, and that the defendant J. M. McDonald was the holder of the note without consideration, and received it with notice of the terms of the agreement under which it was executed. The defendant J. M. McDonald denied that he took the note without consideration or with notice of the alleged equities of the plaintiff, and by a cross-complaint prayed for judgment on the note against the plaintiff. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Thornton, J. There are three appeals in this action, one from a judgment in favor of J. M. McDonald, another from an order refusing to set aside the judgment (No. 8187), and another from a judgment in favor of M. L. McDonald.
The cause came on for trial by the court on the 25th of January, 1881. After hearing the evidence offered, the court ordered judgment in favor of J. M. McDonald, and postponed the further trial of the cause as between the plaintiff and M. L. McDonald until the 25th of July, 1881. On this latter date, the court below orally announced that judgment would be given in favor of M. L. McDonald, and directed findings to be prepared and submitted to the court. Before the findings were signed, the attorney for McDonald directed the clerk of the court to enter the judgment rendered in his favor, and such judgment was recorded on the 7th of October, 1881.
From this judgment the plaintiff prosecuted an appeal to this court. When this appeal was taken and perfected, the findings had not been signed by the judge who tried the case, and findings had never been waived. In his ■bill of exceptions taken to be used on the appeal from this judgment, the plaintiff specified, as the errors on which he would rely to reverse the judgment, the failure to sign and file findings of fact, and errors of law occurring at the trial in the rejection of evidence offered by .plaintiff. The bill of exceptions just referred to was sufficient to bring these errors before the appellate- court. M. L. McDonald afterwards moved the Supreme Court for leave to confess error, and for an order reversing the judgment and remanding the cause for further proceedings. This motion was, on the 18th of March, 1882, [165]granted, and the order was entered accordingly. The order entered was that the judgment “be and the same is hereby reversed, with costs, and cause remanded.”
A remittitur containing this order was duly sent down to the lower court. On the filing of this remittitur in the court below, plaintiff moved that the cause be placed on the calendar for trial, as to the issues between plaintiff and M. L. McDonald. This motion was denied, and plaintiff excepted.
The defendant M. L. McDonald moved the court below for leave to present findings of fact and conclusions of law on the trial of this action, for signature by the judge, and that judgment be entered thereon. This motion was granted, and plaintiff excepted. The court then proceeded to have findings filed and judgment entered on them in favor of M. L. McDonald.
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)