CITIZENS NAT TRUST SAVINGS BANK OF LOS ANGELES v. MESERVE

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

CITIZENS' NAT. TRUST & SAVINGS BANK OF LOS ANGELES v. MESERVE et al. (two cases).a1

Civ. 9698, 9648.

Decided: June 04, 1934

Hiram E. Casey, of Los Angeles, for petitioner Marguerite Maloney Mayo in Civ. 9698. G. C. De Garmo, in pro. per. and W. M. Crane, both of Los Angeles, for petitioner G. C. De Garmo in Civ. 9648.

This opinion and ruling covers two petitions to change the bill of exceptions under section 652, Code of Civil Procedure.

The above-entitled case is on appeal to this court and defendants-appellants Marguerite Maloney Mayo and G. C. De Garmo substituted for Julia B. Burns by separate petitions request this court to proceed under section 652, Code of Civil Procedure, and change the bill of exceptions so as to show that the findings of fact and conclusions of law were not served on defendants according to the requirements of section 634, Code of Civil Procedure, and in fact were never served on defendants at all. Said defendants have regularly requested the trial judge to make such change, but he has refused so to do.

The petitions are denied for the reason that section 634, Code of Civil Procedure, requiring the service of findings of fact and conclusions of law where the court orders them prepared by counsel, is directory; the court having inherent plenary power to give its reasons for its judgment in its findings of fact, and to order its judgment entered without interference from the legislative department of the government. Lorraine v. McComb (Cal. Sup.) 32 P.(2d) 960. It may also be mentioned that section 634, Code of Civil Procedure, does not require service of findings except where they are ordered by the judge to be prepared by counsel and it does not appear that the judge made such an order in this case. It is apparent, therefore, that the requested change in the bill of exceptions, if made, could not affect the merits of the appeal.

STEPHENS, Presiding Justice.

We concur: DESMOND, J.; ARCHBALD, Justice pro tem.

Copied to clipboard