Jackson v. Puget Sound Lumber Co.
Before: Beatty
Synopsis
Reference—Court Commissioner—Resignation—Power to Report.— The transfer of an action for money had and received with a counterclaim for goods sold and delivered, made pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, to a person named and designated as “court commissioner,” for an accounting, and requiring “said court commissioner” to report the evidence, and the balance due on the accounting, is, in effect, a reference to the person named under section 638 of the Code; and the power of the referee to report is unaffected by bis prior resignation of the office of court commissioner.
Id.—Power of Court Commissioner.—A court commissioner as such has no power to try any issue of fact raised by the pleadings.
Id.—Intention of Parties as to Reference—Trial of Issues.—Where the parties acted under the stipulation and order, and tried the whole case before the court commissioner precisely as it should have been tried before a referee, it is to be held that they intended a reference.
Id.—Construction of Stipulation and Order.—The stipulation of the parties, and the order of the court following its language, are to be construed in the same sense, and so as to make them lawful and effective; and any language involving an absurdity, and any phrase or clause inconsistent with the object and intention of the parties, is to be rejected.
Id.—Finding of Referee—Sufficiency of Evidence.—The finding of the referee will not be disturbed for insufficiency of the evidence, where it is conflicting, confused, and uncertain, if there is any evidence to support it.
Id —Evidence—Mutual Accounts—Transactions Prior to Period of Limitation.—It is not error, in settling the mutual accounts of the parties of long standing, to allow evidence of transactions occurring more than two years before the commencement of the action, where it appears that the amount of the claim allowed accrued within the two years’ limitation, and no error or injury resulted in the statement of the account.
BEATTY, C. J. This is an action for money had and received to the use of plaintiff. Defendants denied the allegations of the complaint and pleaded a counterclaim for goods sold and delivered. Such being the issue, and the whole issue, made by the pleadings, the superior court, upon and in accordance with a- stipulation of the parties, made and entered the following order in the case: “It is ordered that this action be and it is hereby transferred to Stuart S. Wright, court commissioner, for an accounting; said court commissioner to report back to this court the evidence taken, and the balance found due on said accounting.” In pursuance of this order, the parties appeared before Hr. Wright and submitted evidence as to their mutual demands. Various objections were made to offered evidence, but none were ruled upon by the commissioner, the evidence being admitted subject to the objections which were reserved for consideration of the court upon the final hearing. After the matters in controversy before the commissioner were submitted for decision, he resigned the office of court commissioner, and subsequently reported findings of fact and conclusions of law to the effect that the defendants had received to the use of plaintiff the sum of. thirteen hundred dollars, no part of which had been paid; and that plaintiff was entitled to a judgment for that sum, together with interest and costs.
The superior court adopted this report, and, without notice to defendants, rendered and entered a judgment accordingly. The defendants thereupon filed exceptions to the report upon the grounds that it was against the evidence, that errors had been committed by the commissioner in his rulings at the trial, and that he had ceased to be commissioner before he made or filed his findings. The defendant at the same time gave notice of a motion to set aside and annul the report and judgment, upon the grounds that Wright had ceased to be court commissioner before he made his report, and that the judgment had been prematurely and improvidently entered without notice to them, and before they had any opportunity to file their objections or be heard in their support. At the hearing of this motion the principal controversy seems to have been upon the question as to the capacity in which Wright had dealt with the case—whether as court commissioner with only the powers conferred by section [99259] of the Code of Civil Procedure, or as a referee appointed under section 638 of the same code. The court held that he had acted as referee, and that his resignation of the office of court commissioner left his power to report upon the matters' referred to him unaffected. But the court at the same time held that he had exceeded his powers in reporting findings and conclusions, and therefore vacated the judgment as being without findings to support it, and also set aside the report as to all matters except the finding of a balance due to plaintiff on the accounting of thirteen hundred dollars and interest—with a direction to the parties to take such further steps in the case as they might be advised. Thereupon plaintiff gave notice of a motion for a further hearing of the cause before the court, for the adoption of the findings of the referee, and for further findings covering all the issues in the case. This motion was regularly brought to a hearing upon the report of the referee, and upon all the papers, files, minutes and proceedings in the action, and, neither party having any further testimony to offer, the court made and filed its findings and conclusions of law covering all the issues in the case, and in accordance therewith rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for thirteen hundred dollars and costs, which was duly entered. From the judgment so entered the defendants within sixty days after its rendition took this appeal.
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)