WILLAMS v. DAVIS (1945)

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

WILLAMS v. DAVIS.

Civ. 14617.

Decided: July 06, 1945

Edna I. Williams, in pro. per. Edward R. Young, Frank R. Johnston and E. L. Searle, all of Los Angeles, for respondent.

From an order of the trial court granting defendant's motion to terminate proceedings for the preparation of a transcript on appeal, plaintiff appeals.^*

The essential facts are:

A reporter's transcript was filed with the trial court September 27, 1940. The trial judge thereupon fixed October 7, 1940 as the date for the hearing on the settlement of the transcript. The matter was continued from time to time until June 23, 1941 for the purpose of affording plaintiff time to read the transcript and prepare suggested corrections. On June 23, 1941, plaintiff handed to defendant in court approximately 177 typewritten pages of proposed corrections. Thereafter the matter was continued from time to time to afford defendant's counsel time within which to check the proposed corrections. On May 18, 1943, the matter came on for settlement of the transcript and defendant's counsel stated to the court that he would stipulate to certain corrections but not to others; the trial judge then suggested that plaintiff and defendant hold conferences to see if they could not agree upon the remaining corrections. Nothing further was done by plaintiff in the matter until October 18, 1943 when she filed a notice of motion for a new trial; whereupon defendant filed a motion to terminate the proceedings for the preparation of a transcript on appeal which resulted in the order which is the basis of the present appeal.

This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:

Did the trial court err in granting defendant's motion to terminate the proceedings for the preparation of a transcript on appeal?

This question must be answered in the negative and is governed by the established rule in California that an order of a trial court terminating proceedings for the preparation of a transcript on appeal is one largely within the discretion of the trial judge which will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. (Walker v. Etcheverry, 38 Cal.App.2d 611, 613, 101 P.2d 709, and cases cited therein.)

Applying the foregoing rule to the facts in the present case, it appears that more than three years elapsed from the time plaintiff commenced proceedings to obtain a transcript on appeal until the present order was made; also that for more than five months subsequent to May 18, 1943, plaintiff took no action whatsoever to have the transcript settled. Such delay, we believe, supports the trial court's implied finding that plaintiff had not exercised due diligence in proceeding to have the transcript settled. Therefore the order was correct.

It should ever be borne in mind that the best interests of litigants and the public is served in having appeals promptly heard and determined, and it has ever been the spirit of an enlightened jurisprudence to have litigated matters promptly and speedily settled without undue delay.

For the foregoing reasons the order is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  For previous phases pertaining to this action, see Williams v. Davis, 68 Cal.App.2d 640, 157 P.2d 655, and Williams v. Davis, 69 Cal.App.2d 141, 158 P.2d 748.

McCOMB, Justice.

MOORE, P. J., and W. J. WOOD, J., concur.