Lee v. Small Claims Court of Judicial Township No. 4

GRIFFIN, J. Once before this action was before this court for consideration. (Lee v. Small Claims Court, 34 Cal. App. (2d) 1 [92 Pac. (2d) 937].) The facts are quite fully set forth therein. After a reversal of the judgment, service was attempted to be made on P. I. Haddan, Sr., as administrator, by publication. His default was entered and he made no appearance at the time set for the further hearing of the certiorari proceedings. A similar judgment followed as was rendered in the previous hearing. Appellants filed an opening brief and contend that the judgment should again be reversed and raise many of the points heretofore raised. They cite many of the authorities heretofore cited. After due notice, petitioner and respondent has failed to file any brief in this action.

Appellants now argue (1) that the substituted service of appellant administrator was defective; (2) that the superior court acquired no jurisdiction of the subject matter or of [532]appellant administrator; and (3) that the judgment of the small claims court was a valid and binding judgment.

We will first discuss the record and evidence presented to the superior court in reference to the right of the small claims court to enter a judgment in favor of P. I. Haddan, Sr., as administrator of the estate of Myrtle G. Haddan, deceased, and against petitioner and respondent E. A. Lee. A stenographic transcript of the testimony taken before the small claims court was considered by the trial court as well as the docket entries of that court. This record discloses that the small claims court action was first instituted in the small claims court by affidavit signed by Myrtle G. Haddan, as plaintiff, against E. A. Lee and several others, as defendants. Plaintiff then resided in Los Angeles County but claimed that the cause of action originated in Imperial County. The defendants were ordered to appear before the small claims court on August 9, 1937. Several of them appeared, including petitioner and respondent herein, but plaintiff Myrtle G. Haddan failed to appear. P. I. Haddan, Jr., also known as Phil Haddan, her son, who was not a party to the action, appeared in the court and the justice remarked to him: “She (plaintiff) isn’t allowed an attorney, but you appear as a friend of the court,” to which remark the son replied: “I want to make a statement for the purpose of the record of this suit. In so far as this case is concerned, I have absolutely no interest in its merit. ... I only appear here in behalf of my mother. I didn’t even know I was going to make a trip to the valley when I came in here to this hearing. ... I want the court to understand I do not appear here as a plaintiff in the action and I have no interest in the matter.” Thereupon, the court swore the witnesses and took certain evidence. Objection was made by the defendant Lee to proceeding in the absence of the plaintiff.. After some argument the court continued the matter until the “cooler weather” set in, and on account of the absence of the plaintiff. Defendant Lee objected to any further continuance. On April 19, 1939, Lee received the following notice signed by the justice of the small claims court: “The case of Mrs. P. I. Haddan vs. E. A. Lee, et al., has been pending for many months. . . . Meanwhile Mrs. Haddan has died . . . and her son . . . Phil Haddan, appearing at this time, requests that the case be heard at this time of his visit; wherefore the time