Sampson v. Sapoznik

WHITE, P. J. Judgment in favor of respondent in the above entitled action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County was filed on June 26, 1952, and was entered on June 27, 1952. Said judgment, after recitals of fact, reads as follows:

“Now, therefore, by reason of the findings of fact and conclusions of law aforesaid,

[608]‘ ‘ It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that judgment be given for plaintiff and against defendants Benjamin A. Sapoznik, Theodore J. Ticktin, and Joseph Landfield in the sum of Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($19,500.00) with interest at the rate of Seven per cent (7%) per annum from October 6, 1950 in the sum of $2,354.63, and that plaintiff recover from said defendants his costs of suit in the sum of $191.85.

“It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that said defendants are entitled to the assets of Scar|anet Co., a California corporation which rejnain in the possession of the plaintiff, consisting of office equipment and the balance of merchandise inventory. ’'

Notice of appeal was duly and timely filed by appellant Theodore J. Ticktin on September 3, 1952, and by appellant Benjamin A. Sapoznik on September 22, 1952.

On November 12, 1952, respondent filed a notice of motion to correct the aforesaid judgment nunc pro tunc by striking therefrom the last paragraph. This motion was accompanied by an affidavit of Attorney Joseph J. Burris, of counsel for respondent, to the effect that “three successive and separate sets of findings of fact and conclusions of law had been prepared and two successive judgments had been submitted pursuant to instructions of the court, the final set of findings of fact and conclusions of law having been prepared after a conference in chambers between the attorneys for all parties and the court.” Said affidavit of Joseph J. Burris further stated that the court “had signed the set of findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared last in point of time, but had signed the judgment prepared first in point of time; that the judgment signed did not express the intention of the court. ’ ’

On December 3, 1952, the court by minute order granted the motion to correct the judgment nunc pro tunc “on all the grounds stated in -the motion. ’ ’ Appellants thereupon filed their notice of appeal from said minute order.

Appellants now make application to this court for an order consolidating the two aforesaid appeals.