S. Cal. Motor Rd. Co. v. San Bernardino Nat'l Bank
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Change of Place of Trial—Disqualification of Judge—Suit bt Judge Against Moving Parties.—Where the judge before whom a case is to be tried is not a party to the action nor related to any party thereto and has not been an attorney for either party, the fact that he has commenced an independent action against the plaintiffs upon an entirely different cause of action, it appearing that the judgment in one case would in no way be affected by the judgment in the other, does not show such interest in the action as to disqualify him from trying the cause, and he may properly deny a motion to change the place of trial for such alleged disqualification.
Id,—Contradiction of Affidavit—Presumption from Denial of Motion. Where a motion for a change of venue, made upon the ground of disqualification of the judge because of his alleged interest in the result of the action, is denied by the judge, a statement in an affidavit used upon the motion to the effect that the affiant was informed and believed that the judge had said he considered himself disqualified from trying any case in which the persons making the motion were parties, is not to be treated as an admission that the judge was not qualified to try the case, merely because the affidavit was not specifically answered or denied, but the action of the judge in denying the motion must be presumed to be a denial that he was so interested.
Id.—Motions—Knowledge of Judge.—In all motions before a judge during the progress of a trial he may act on his own knowledge in regard to things which in their nature are better known to himself than they could be to others.
Belcher, C. —This action was commenced in the superior court of San Bernardino county, and in due time the plaintiff moved that the place of trial be changed to another county, upon the ground that both of the judges of the court in which it was pending were disqualified to try it. The motion was heard before Hon. John L. Campbell, one of the judges of the said court, and denied, and from that order the plaintiff appeals.
It does not appear from the transcript what the character of the action is, but it is said in the brief for respondents that it was “ brought by appellant against respondents to obtain a judgment that a certain informally executed promissory note, given by appellant to respondent, the San Bernardino Hational Bank, is not the promissory note of appellant, and seeking, as inci[319]dental relief, to have said bank enjoined from, a threatened sale of certain first-mortgage bonds of appellant, pledged to secure the payment of said promissory note.”
The affidavit on which the motion was based was made by R W. Button, the president of the corporation plaintiff, and, as to Judge Campbell, it stated, in substance, that he, as plaintiff, had brought an action in the superior court of San Bernardino county against the said corporation and I. H. Polk, as receiver thereof, to recover possession of certain land occupied by the corporation’s railroad, and five thousand dollars damages for the alleged unlawful occupation thereof; that the action was still pending and undetermined in the said court, and the effect of the judgment, “ if John L. Campbell should recover it in said case, will be to prevent said Southern California Motor Road Company and said I. H. Polk, as such receiver, from operating its road from the town of Colton to( the city of San Bernardino; that by reason of the existence of said suit and claim of John L. Campbell against said Southern California Motor Road Company and I. EL Polk, as such receiver, I am informed and believe that said John L. Campbell has stated that he considers himself disqualified from trying any case in which the said Southern California Motor Road Company and I. EL Polk, as its receiver, are parties.”
At the hearing of the motion counsel for plaintiff read the affidavit and the complaint referred to therein, and also the notice of the motion and demand for a change of the place of trial. No witnesses were sworn or examined and no other affidavit or testimony was offered, read or heard. The motion was then argued by counsel, and denied, and the plaintiff excepted to the ruling.
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)