DocketNumber: Docket No. S.F. 14965.
Citation Numbers: 29 P.2d 192, 219 Cal. 737
Judges: SHENK, J.
Filed Date: 1/24/1934
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
This is an appeal by the petitioner from a judgment of the superior court in a certiorari proceeding affirming an order of the municipal court denying a motion to quash an execution.
In October, 1931, a judgment for $1117.35 was rendered in the Municipal Court of the City of Los Angeles against the petitioner and in favor of one Shane. In March, 1932, Shane filed an abstract of said judgment in the office of the clerk of the Municipal Court in San Francisco, where the petitioner resided. Based upon said abstract an execution was issued by the clerk of the Municipal Court in San Francisco and a levy thereof was made upon an automobile owned by the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner presented a formal motion to the Municipal Court in San Francisco to quash the writ of execution on the ground that said municipal court was without jurisdiction to issue said writ and that the same was void. The motion was denied. No appeal from that order to the superior court was taken or attempted. The petitioner applied to the superior court for a writ of review, which was granted. Upon a return to the writ the order of the municipal court was affirmed. Hence this appeal.
In his opening brief the petitioner-appellant states as the legal questions involved: "Did the municipal court of San Francisco have any jurisdiction whatsoever in the cause; and, secondly, was its jurisdiction properly invoked and exercised?"
Following the question propounded there is much discussion upon the question of the jurisdiction of the municipal court with reference to issuance and enforcement of an execution on a judgment rendered in another county. Considerable confusion has resulted because of the failure to distinguish the question of jurisdiction of the municipal court to entertain and pass upon the motion to quash and the power of the clerk of the municipal court to issue the execution. This appeal involves the former question, namely, Had the municipal court jurisdiction to entertain the motion to quash and dispose of the same? We conclude that it had for two reasons: *Page 739
First, the respondent Municipal Court, as a court, took no part in and had nothing to do with the issuance of said writ of execution. The writ was issued by the clerk of the court, without an order of court directing the same to issue, and the same was issued by the clerk in the exercise of a ministerial function. (Santini v. Justice's Court,
Secondly, certiorari is not the proper remedy when the aggrieved party has a remedy by appeal, even though the inferior tribunal was without jurisdiction to make the order. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1068; Helbush v. Superior Court,
From what has been said it follows that we may not, on this appeal, properly pass upon the question of the power of the clerk of the municipal court to issue an execution on said abstract of judgment. A determination thereof *Page 741 one way or the other could not affect the result of this appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
Seawell, J., Thompson, J., Curtis, J., Langdon, J., and Waste, C.J., concurred.
Adams v. Bell , 219 Cal. 503 ( 1933 )
Santini v. Justice's Court , 218 Cal. 671 ( 1933 )
Seaboard Surety Corp. v. Superior Court , 112 Cal. App. 248 ( 1931 )
Helbush v. Superior Court , 99 Cal. App. 501 ( 1929 )
Matter of Hughes , 159 Cal. 360 ( 1911 )
Howaldt v. Superior Court , 18 Cal. 2d 114 ( 1941 )
Ivory v. Superior Court , 12 Cal. 2d 455 ( 1938 )
Spanach v. Superior Court , 4 Cal. 2d 447 ( 1935 )
Casner v. Superior Court , 23 Cal. App. 2d 730 ( 1937 )
Moyer v. Superior Court , 29 Cal. App. 2d 330 ( 1938 )