Holt v. Holt

California Supreme Court May 23, 1895 No. No. 15676Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a judge who is re-elected to a new term may properly complete the record and enter judgment in a case tried during their previous term, provided the judgment was rendered before the term expired. The court further held that the failure of a clerk to perform the ministerial duty of entering a judgment into the minute-book does not invalidate the judgment or prevent its subsequent entry.

Issues

Whether a judge may enter a judgment nunc pro tunc after being re-elected to a new term when the verdict was rendered during the prior term.
Whether the failure of a clerk to transcribe an oral judgment into the minute-book invalidates the judgment or prevents its later entry.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The failure of the clerk to do so was a failure to perform a ministerial duty which could afterward be performed at his own instance, or by direction of the court at any time.”

“it follows that, notwithstanding the judge of the court below was re-elected between the time of the trial and the completion of the record thereof, the proceedings complained of were authorized and proper.”

Synopsis

Divorce—Issue as to Marriage—Special Verdict op Jury—Rendition of Judgment—Expiration of Term—Order for Entry of Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc.—In an action for divorce, where special issues were submitted to the jury, which found and returned a special verdict, that the parties to the action were not married to each other, whereupon the court orally ordered judgment to be entered upon the verdict, which order was entered by the clerk in the rough minutes of the eourt’s proceedings of the day, but was not transcribed into the engrossed minute-book, such order necessarily includes an approval and adoption of the verdict, and constitutes a rendition of judgment in favor of the defendant; and notwithstanding the failure of the ministerial duty of the clerk to transcribe it into the minute-book of the court and to render the judgment as ordered, and notwithstanding the judge of the court was re-elected between the time of trial and the time of completion of the record, a valid order may be made after his re-election that the clerk enter judgment in favor of the defendant nunc pro tunc as of the date of the rendition of the judgment.

Belcher, C. This is an action for divorce upon the ground of extreme cruelty. The answer denies, among other things, that the parties to the action ever intermarried, or that they ever were or are husband and wife.

The cause came on regularly for trial on November 11, 1891, and a jury was impaneled to try the same. Witnesses were examined on both sides, and, after argument by counsel, the case was submitted to the jury on November 12th upon the following special issues: “ 1. Were the parties to this action married to each other? 2. If you say that the parties were married, has the defendant treated the plaintiff with extreme cruelty ?”

The jury rendered the following verdict: “ Were the parties to this action married to each other? A. No.” “ Thereupon, on the said 12th day of November, 1891, in open court, the court orally gave and pronounced judgment in favor of the said defendant, that this action be dismissed.”

This order was entered by the clerk in the rough minutes of the court’s proceedings on November 12th, but was not transcribed by him into the engrossed minute-book of that day. No written findings wrnre [260]filed, and no judgment was entered in pursuance of this order. In October, 1893, the plaintiff moved the court that the cause be set down for trial. The motion came on regularly to be heard, and in support thereof the plaintiff read the pleadings in the action and the minutes of the court as to the trial. The court thereupon denied the motion and directed the clerk of the court to enter judgment in favor of the defendant nunc pro tunc as of November 12, 1891. A paper was then, on October 30, 1893, signed by the- judge, and filed, setting out the facts, and that “ the court approves and adopts the said verdict, and as a conclusion of law the said defendant is entitled to judgment for his costs, and the court hereby orders judgment to be entered accordingly as of the 12th day of November, 1891.”

Judgment was accordingly so entered, and from it the plaintiff appeals.

In November, 1893, the plaintiff moved the court to vacate and set aside the judgment, findings, and decision filed October 30, 1893, upon the grounds: 1. That the trial of the cause had not been completed at the time said judgment was entered; 2. That at the time the said judgment was entered, and the said findings made and filed, the term of office of the judge who tried the cause had expired, and his judicial powers relative to the trial thereof during his preceding term had ceased.

Holt v. Holt

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief