Adams v. Minor

CHIPMAN, C. Application for writ of mandate commanding respondent to proceed to the rendition of a decision and judgment in a certain cause now pending in the superior court of Stanislaus county, wherein John Adams (petitioner here)' and others are plaintiffs, and G. R. Stoddard, collector of Modesto Irrigation District, in said county, is defendant, and First National Bank of Los Angeles is intervenor. The facts are to-be found in an agreed statement and in the pleadings, from which it appears; That the action involved the validity of certain bonds issued by the said irrigation district, of which the Bank of Modesto held a portion of the par value of three thousand dollars; that the respondent was the owner of certain shares of the capital stock of said bank, the amount not shown. It is but fair to the learned judge who tried the ease to add that he expressed doubt at the beginning as to his right to sit in the cause, and did so reluctantly and only upon the assur[373]anee by both parties to the action that the validity of the bonds held by the bank would not be drawn in question. Subsequently, and at the argument upon the evidence, the validity of the entire issue of bonds, including those held by the bank, was made an issue. The cause was submitted on briefs to be filed, but shortly afterward respondent called up the case of Adams v. Stoddard, counsel for both parties being in court, and made an order vacating the submission, and a few days later made another order refusing peremptorily to decide the case.

1. The principal question presented is: Had the judge such interest as disqualified him from deciding the case?

We think the answer must be in the affirmative. Section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides as follows: “Ho justice, judge, etc., .... shall sit or act as such in any action or proceeding: 1. To which he is a party or in which he is interested.” We cannot take into consideration the amount of the judge’s interest in the bank—indeed, it is not given; nor can we say that, of the entire issue of bonds, the part held by the bank was too small for judicial cognizance. It certainly was not so small as to come within the maxim de minimis non curat lex. Parker, C. J., in Pearce v. Atwood, 13 Mass. 324, said: “Ho man can lawfully act as judge in a case in which he may have a pecuniary interest. Hor does it make any difference that the interest appears to be trifling, for the minds of men are so differently affected by the same degrees of interest that it has been found impossible to draw a satisfactory line.”