From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sadicoff v. Jackson

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
Feb 21, 1920
46 Cal.App. 256 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920)

Opinion

Civ. No. 2720.

February 21, 1920.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County. Z. B. West, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Cleveland Schultz for Appellant.

Morton Thompson, Harold C. Morton and Fred Horowitz for Respondent.


Defendant appeals from a judgment for $389.02, damages for wrongful conversion of personal property of the plaintiff. We have before us the judgment-roll, without any bill of exceptions.

[1] No attempt is made by appellant to present any point on the merits of the case. He merely suggests that the findings of fact were served on his attorney on February 20, 1918, and were signed and filed on the 25th of that month, which he says was one day before expiration of the period of time prescribed by section 634 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and, therefore, claims that the judgment is "void."

The cited code section is merely directory, and even if it appeared by the record (in fact it does not so appear) that the findings had been prepared by a party under an order directing him so to do, and findings were signed less than five days after proposed findings were served on defendant, the validity of the judgment would not be impaired thereby. ( Amundson v. Shafer, 36 Cal.App. 398, [ 172 P. 173].)

The point presented by appellant is truly mathematical, since it has no dimensions. It is plain that the appeal has been taken for purposes of delay. Therefore, it is ordered that the judgment be affirmed, and that the plaintiff recover from defendant, besides costs, the additional sum of fifty dollars damages.

Shaw, J., and James, J., concurred.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on April 15, 1920.

All the Justices concurred.


Summaries of

Sadicoff v. Jackson

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
Feb 21, 1920
46 Cal.App. 256 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920)
Case details for

Sadicoff v. Jackson

Case Details

Full title:HARRY G. SADICOFF, a Minor etc., Respondent, v. C. E. JACKSON, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One

Date published: Feb 21, 1920

Citations

46 Cal.App. 256 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920)
189 P. 111

Citing Cases

Pruyn v. Waterman

[9] Defendant also argues that the findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed and signed without…

Manfre v. Sharp

If they are improper that will appear on the appeal. ( Amundson v. Shafer, 36 Cal.App. 398, 401 [ 172 P.…