O. V. Trompeter & Co. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Mar 2, 1935 No. Civ. No. 10036Published

Before: Stephens

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied the petition to compel the trial court to render judgment because the underlying moratorium law had been superseded by new legislation, rendering further proceedings futile.

Issues

Whether the trial court should be directed to render judgment despite the existence of a moratorium law.
Whether the moratorium act is unconstitutional.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Such moratorium law has been superseded by another and different moratorium act”

“Further proceedings herein would be futile.”

“The petition is denied.”

STEPHENS, P. J. Petitioner brought suit in respondent court to foreclose a special assessment bond. The case was tried and the trial court decided in favor of petitioner but declined to sign the judgment because a moratorium law (Assembly Bill No. 16, Special Session of Legislature, 1934) had in the meantime become effective and would remain effective until February 28, 1935. Petitioner requests this court to direct the trial court to render judgment, contending that the moratorium act is unconstitutional.

Such moratorium law has been superseded by another and different moratorium act (Assembly Bill No. 75, Session of Legislature, 1935, approved and effective February 1, 1935). Further proceedings herein would be futile.

The petition is denied.

Grail, J., and Scott, J., pro tem., concurred.

O. V. Trompeter & Co. v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief