California Court of Appeal • 1942
51 Cal. App. 2d 322
Full access
The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.
Takeaway
In short, the court enforced the parties' stipulation to reverse the merits judgment and dismissed the separate procedural appeal because that reversal eliminated any live controversy over the appellate transcript.
The plaintiff appealed from an adverse judgment in her action to quiet title. The parties and their attorneys stipulated that the judgment could be reversed immediately, with each side bearing its own costs.
The plaintiff also appealed two procedural orders: one terminating proceedings to prepare and certify a reporter's transcript for appeal, and another refusing to excuse her default in failing to have the transcript prepared and filed on time. The California Supreme Court had observed, in denying motions to dismiss the appeals, that any failure appeared attributable to lower-court officers—the clerk, the court reporter, or both—rather than necessarily to the plaintiff.
Whether the quiet-title judgment should be reversed under the parties' stipulation.
Holding
Yes. The court reversed the judgment pursuant to the parties' stipulation.
Reasoning
The parties and their attorneys expressly agreed that the judgment against the plaintiff could be reversed and that the remittitur could issue immediately. They further agreed that neither side would recover costs from the other, so the court gave effect to that agreement.
Whether the appeal from the orders concerning preparation and filing of the reporter's transcript remained justiciable after reversal of the underlying judgment.
Holding
No. Reversal of the judgment made the transcript-related issues moot, so the court dismissed that appeal.
Reasoning
The procedural appeal challenged an order ending efforts to prepare and certify a reporter's transcript and an order refusing relief from the plaintiff's failure to have the transcript prepared and filed on time. The Supreme Court had indicated that any lapse may have been attributable to the trial court clerk or reporter rather than to the plaintiff.
reasoning?