Opinion
Docket No. 17870.
January 21, 1959.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying motion to vacate a previous judgment and to enter a different judgment. Theresa Meikle, Judge. Affirmed.
Claude D. Perasso for Appellant.
Gately Gately, Nubar Tashjian and Ralph Bancroft for Respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate a previous judgment and to enter a different judgment.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Were the previous findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment signed and entered through the trial court's inadvertence and mistake?
RECORD
INADVERTENCE AND MISTAKE
[1] Meyer Porath113 Cal.App.2d 808 248 P.2d 984 Culligan Leider,65 Cal.App.2d 51 149 P.2d 894 Smith Smith,157 Cal.App.2d 658 321 P.2d 886 [2] Minardi Collopy 49 Cal.2d 348 316 P.2d 952 Bastajian Brown19 Cal.2d 209 120 P.2d 9 Morgan State Board of Equalization89 Cal.App.2d 674 201 P.2d 859 [3] McKannay McKannay,68 Cal.App. 709 230 P. 218 Stevens Superior Court, 160 Cal.App.2d 264 325 P.2d 204 [4]
The motion as made was limited to correcting the findings and judgment as to the first cause of action only for the reason that the findings found that all of the allegations of the first and second causes of action in plaintiff's complaint were true and yet the judgment was that defendant have judgment on the first cause of action.
The motion was noticed for May 28. The record fails to show what, if anything, happened that day. Plaintiff contends that the motion was granted. There is no evidence or record to that effect.
The difference between the two causes of action is that the first one sought rent for the period when plaintiff alleged that his property was occupied by the decedent, and the second sought rent for the period of alleged occupancy by the defendant administrator.
In another case this day decided, Nacht v. Nacht, post, p. 254 [ 334 P.2d 275] that very question was in issue and decided.
The order is affirmed.
Peters, P.J., and Wood (Fred B.), J., concurred.