65 P. 742 | Cal. | 1901
Lead Opinion
This appeal is from a judgment rendered upon certiorari by the superior court of Marin County, affirming the judgment of a justice of the peace.
A case was tried by the justice, and at the conclusion of the trial was taken under advisement, and the parties were allowed to file briefs. Some months afterwards, the justice rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in that action. The defendant subsequently commenced this proceeding.
His contention is, that a justice of the peace has no authority to take a case under advisement, and that a failure to decide a case at the conclusion of the trial works a discontinuance of the cause. This contention is based upon section 892 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads: "When the trial is by the court, judgment must be rendered at the close of the trial."
The point was made and expressly decided in Heinlen v.Phillips,
It seems that in Heinlen v. Phillips,
The judgment is affirmed.
McFarland, J., and Henshaw, J., concurred.
Hearing in Bank denied.
Beatty, C.J., dissented from the order denying a hearing in Bank, and filed the following opinion on the 31st of July, 1901: —
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent from the order denying a rehearing. While it is true that the Department could not have decided otherwise than it did without disregarding the decision of the whole court in the case of Heinlen v. Phillips,