Southern California Aquazone Co. v. Los Angeles Soda Works

California Court of Appeal

Southern California Aquazone Co. v. Los Angeles Soda Works

283 P. 345, 102 Cal. App. 655, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 152

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 19, 1929

DocketDocket No. 6028.

StatusPublished

This text of 283 P. 345 (Southern California Aquazone Co. v. Los Angeles Soda Works) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Southern California Aquazone Co. v. Los Angeles Soda Works, 283 P. 345, 102 Cal. App. 655, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 152 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

CRAIG, Acting P. J.

When the issues of fact in this case were ready for trial upon amended pleadings, the department of the Superior Court in which it was pending was engaged in hearing another proceeding. Upon stipulation the presiding judge referred it to a member of the bar who qualified as a judge pro tempore, evidence was taken before him, and on December 22, 1926, he signed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment, to which appellant reserved exceptions upon the ground that the judge pro tempore had been divested of authority to perform the functions of a judge of the Superior Court.

Our Supreme Court has already decided that an action pending and ready for entry of final judgment after trial might not be completed by a judge pro tempore subsequently to amendment of article VI of the Constitution on November 2, 1926. (Cal. Const., art. VI, secs, 1a, 6, 7, 8; Stats. 1925, ch. 48, p. 1369; Martello v. Superior Court, 202 Cal. 400 [261 Pac. 476].)

The judgment is reversed.

Thompson (Ira F.), J., and Burnell, J., pro tern., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on January 17, 1930.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CRAIG, Acting P. J.

When the issues of fact in this case were ready for trial upon amended pleadings, the department of the Superior Court in which it was pending was engaged in hearing another proceeding. Upon stipulation the presiding judge referred it to a member of the bar who qualified as a judge pro tempore, evidence was taken before him, and on December 22, 1926, he signed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment, to which appellant reserved exceptions upon the ground that the judge pro tempore had been divested of authority to perform the functions of a judge of the Superior Court.

Our Supreme Court has already decided that an action pending and ready for entry of final judgment after trial might not be completed by a judge pro tempore subsequently to amendment of article VI of the Constitution on November 2, 1926. (Cal. Const., art. VI, secs, 1a, 6, 7, 8; Stats. 1925, ch. 48, p. 1369; Martello v. Superior Court, 202 Cal. 400 [261 Pac. 476].)

The judgment is reversed.

Thompson (Ira F.), J., and Burnell, J., pro tern., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on January 17, 1930.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 P. 345, 102 Cal. App. 655, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-california-aquazone-co-v-los-angeles-soda-works-calctapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack