gno.law

Southern California Aquazone Co. v. Los Angeles Soda Works

California Court of Appeal · Docket No. 6028. · 1929-12-19 · Published · 283 P. 345 · 102 Cal. App. 655 · 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 152

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AQUAZONE COMPANY (A Corporation) Et Al., Respondents, v. LOS ANGELES SODA WORKS (A Corporation), Appellant

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Trial judge
Robert E. Abbott
Outcome
reversed — pro tempore. Reversed.
Area
civil
Panel
Craig (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Craig

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.

Cites, in this corpus