Clark v. Superior Court

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

7,161

Attorney(S)

Geo. Cadwalader, for the Plaintiff.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from an application for a writ of prohibition addressed to the Superior Court of Lassen County. Prior to the commencement of the year 1880, Adam Murdock sued the petitioner in the District Court of the Twenty-first Judicial District for Lassen County. Issues were joined and a trial was held in November 1879 before the court sitting without a jury. The court took the case under advisement and adjourned sine die on November 24, 1879. On December 26, 1879, the district judge made and signed written findings and a judgment (in the form of a decree) in favor of the plaintiff and sent those documents to the clerk with private instructions not to file the judgment until the reporter's fees were paid. The clerk received the findings, judgment, and directions on September 30, 1879, and they remained unfiled until after the new Constitution went into effect. After the reporter's fees were paid, on April 13, 1880, the Superior Court of Lassen County ordered the clerk "to place said judgment and findings and conclusions of law upon the files and records" of the court. The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to annul that Superior Court order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a writ of prohibition should issue to annul the Superior Court's order directing the clerk to file the prior district court's judgment and findings.
Whether the Superior Court, having acquired jurisdiction over the action, acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction by adopting the district court's findings and judgment rather than proceeding to a de novo trial.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first observed that the writ of prohibition is not appropriately used to annul orders or judgments of courts in the circumstances presented. It concluded the case was not one in which a writ of prohibition could properly issue.

The court reasoned that the Superior Court plainly had jurisdiction over the action and could proceed to try and determine it just as it could have if the action had originally been commenced there. The action had been transferred to the Superior Court and was at issue, and no question was raised about jurisdiction of the parties or the subject matter.

Even assuming arguendo that the Superior Court should have proceeded to try the cause de novo instead of adopting the findings, conclusions, and judgment of the late District Court, the court stated that the proper remedy for such an error is appeal, not prohibition. The court further explained that if a Superior Court, having acquired jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter, were to order judgment in favor of a party without a trial, such a judgment would not be "without or in excess of the jurisdiction" of the tribunal (notwithstanding that it might be erroneous); therefore prohibition would not be appropriate.

Because of this conclusion, the court found it unnecessary to express any opinion on other questions counsel had discussed.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The application for a writ of prohibition is denied, and the restraining order previously granted is vacated.

Implications: The direct consequence is that the Superior Court's order directing the clerk to file the district court's findings and judgment stands (subject to the ordinary appellate process). The opinion indicates that potential errors in the Superior Court's adoption of prior findings should be addressed by appeal rather than by writ of prohibition. The court did not announce or rely upon any cited precedents in reaching this disposition.

Show full summary ...

CLARK v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LASSEN COUNTY

JUDGES: Sharpstein, J. Thornton, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.

OPINION

SHARPSTEIN, Judge

This is an application for a writ of prohibition. The grounds upon which the application is based are substantially the following:

Prior to the commencement of the year 1880, one Adam Murdock sued the petitioner herein, in the District Court of the Twenty-first Judicial District of this State in and for the County of Lassen. Issues were drawn in said action, and a trial was had in the month of November, 1879, before the Court, sitting without a jury. The Court took the case under advisement, and on the 24th of November, 1879, adjourned sine die. On the 26th day of December, 1879, the Judge of said Court made and signed written findings, and a judgment, (in the form of a decree) in favor of the plaintiff in said action, and forwarded said findings and judgment to the clerk of said Court, with private instructions not to file said judgment until the reporter's fees were paid. The clerk received said findings, judgment, and directions on the 30th day of September, 1879, and they remained in the office without being formally filed until after the new Constitution went into effect. Since then the reporter's fees have been paid, and on the 13th day of April, 1880, the Superior Court of said Lassen County ordered the clerk of said Court " to place said judgment and findings and conclusions of law upon the files and records" of said Court. The prayer of the petitioner is, " that a writ of prohibition issue, annulling the said order" of said Superior Court.

Strictly speaking, it is not the office of the writ of prohibition to annul orders or judgments of courts; and it is sufficiently plain to our comprehension that the case presented is not one in which a writ of prohibition can properly issue. Whatever else may be doubted, there is no room for any doubt as to the fact that the action was one of which the Superior Court had jurisdiction, and could proceed to try and determine it precisely as it might have done if said action had been originally commenced in that Court. The case was transferred to that Court, and was at issue. No question is raised as to the Court having had jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject of the action. Now, conceding for the purposes of this argument, that the Court should have proceeded to try said cause de novo, instead of adopting the findings, conclusions, and judgment of the late District Court, it must be obvious that the only remedy for that error is an appeal. If, after acquiring jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter of an action, a Superior Court should order judgment in favor of one of the parties without a trial, that judgment would neither be " without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal," although it might be erroneous, as any judgment might be if rendered upon the naked pleadings in a case where the pleadings raised a material issue. This conclusion renders it unnecessary for us to express any opinion upon the other questions discussed by counsel.

Application denied, and restraining order granted herein vacated.