BASTAJIAN v. BROWN ET AL

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

BASTAJIAN v. BROWN ET AL.

Civ. 13875.

Decided: April 22, 1943

Paul Vallee, Astor Elmassian, Geo. C. Woods, and C. P. Von Herzen, all of Los Angeles (Burton B. Crane, of Los Angeles, of counsel), for appellant. Reynolds & Painter, of Los Angeles, for respondents.

Plaintiff has filed a petition for rehearing in which he asserts that the opinion heretofore filed, Cal.App., 135 P.2d 374, 375, sets forth as facts matters which are untrue. He asserts that the statement in the opinion that “an appeal was taken from the order of September 20, 1937, resulting in the affirmance of the order” is “grossly unfair” to plaintiff and his counsel. A careful examination of the record discloses that no untrue statement appears in the statement of facts in the opinion. Plaintiff however, argues that it is to be implied from the opinion that the Supreme Court, 19 Cal.2d 209, 120 P.2d 9, affirmed the order of September 20, 1937, on the ground that deception had been practiced on the trial court in inducing the acceptance of the findings. He points out that the Supreme Court in affirming the order based its decision upon the ground that the trial judge was justified in making the order of September 20, 1937, upon the ground that the signing of the findings and judgment in the first instance was a clerical error.

Notwithstanding the unwarranted criticism of the trial court and of this court contained in the petition for a rehearing, we prefer to relieve counsel for plaintiff of the fear that the opinion of the court will result in “degrading and besmirching” him.

It is ordered that the following words be inserted in the opinion of the court after the word “order” appearing at the end of the 17th line of page 2 of the opinion (in line 18 page 375, 135 P.2d): “upon the ground that the findings and judgment had been inadvertently filed”.

The petition for a rehearing is denied.

PER CURIAM.