TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wicks v. Ludwig

Wicks v. Ludwig, 9 Cal. 173 (1858)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1858
Judges
Burnett, Terry
Citations
9 Cal. 173
Syllabus
It is essential to the validity of a judgment that it he rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction, at the time and place, and in the form prescribed by law. Where the parties stipulate to try a case before the judge in vacation, and that the judgment shall be entered as if tried at the regular term, and judgment is so rendered, such judgment is a nullity. Ho trial can be had or judgment entered, except in term time.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, County of Trinity. This was an action of trespass to recover damages for injuries done by defendants, by cutting away a dam, ditch, and flume, constructed for mining purposes, and the property of plaintiffs. The defendants, in their answer, among other matters, plead and set up as a bar to this action, a former judgment of the District Court of Trinity county rendered herein, and aver that Ed. Neblett, as sheriff of said county, together with the other defendants, by virtue of a writ of restitution issued on said judgment, diverted the water from the ditch of plaintiffs to that of defendants; and all of their said acts were in obedience to the commands of said writ, etc. On the trial, it appeared that” said judgment was rendered under and by virtue of a stipulation of the parties, that the Judge of said District Court should hear and try said case in vacation, and that his judgment should be rendered as the judgment of the Court, and should have the same effect as though the case were decided by the Supreme Court. Upon this showing, the District Court gave judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Terryburnett

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Terry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

The record offered by defendants to support their plea of former judgment was improperly admitted in evidence; that which on its face purported to be the judgment of a competent Court is shown, by the finding and agreed statement, to have been a judgment entered in vacation, upon a trial had by stipulation before the judge and a jury after the adjournment of the Court for the term.

It is absolutely essential to the validity of a judgment that it be rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction, at the time and place, and in the form prescribed by law. Jurisdiction, in certain cases, is given by our Constitution and laws to the District Courts, which are required to hold regular terms for the trial of causes, commencing at a day fixed, and adjourning from time to time, until the business of the term is disposed of, or the time for holding another term in the same district has arrived. No trial can be had or judgment entered, except in term time. (Smith v. Chichester, 1 Cal., 409 .)

It is said that the judgment, being on its face regular, could not be attacked collaterally; but the party aggrieved must pursue his remedy by appeal. Appeals can be taken only from the judgments of a Court; here there is no judgment of any tribunal having jurisdiction; the proceeding was a mere nullity. “ There was, in fact, no Court in session, and no judgment could, bylaw, have been pronounced; and, consequently, it is not only a nullity, in the ordinary signification of the term, when applied to judgments of Courts having no jurisdiction over the subject-matter or the parties, but it is not even the act of a Court, and is therefore not susceptible of appeal, or the subject of revision in an appellate tribunal.” (Doss v. Waggoner, 3 Texas, 515 .)

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1862–1863: 11876–1877: 21890–1891: 11892–1893: 11894–1895: 11910–1911: 11924–1925: 32022–2023: 118622026peak 1924 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People ex rel. Wicks v. Jones20 Cal. 50 (1862)
  2. Hamblin v. Superior Court233 P. 337 (Cal. 1925)
  3. Williams v. Reutzel29 S.W. 374 (Ark. 1895)
  4. Loesnitz v. Seelinger25 N.E. 1037 (Ind. 1890)
  5. Fox v. Nachtsheim29 P. 140 (Wash. 1892)
  6. Hanley v. City of Medford108 P. 188 (Or. 1910)

Most recent

  1. Jaco v. WinCo Holdings, Inc.No. 1:18-cv-00301 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2022)
  2. Torres de Rodríguez v. American Railroad34 P.R. 661 (1925)
  3. Torres Vda. de Rodríguez v. American Railroad34 P.R. Dec. 689 (1925)
  4. Hamblin v. Superior Court233 P. 337 (Cal. 1925)
  5. Hanley v. City of Medford108 P. 188 (Or. 1910)
  6. Williams v. Reutzel29 S.W. 374 (Ark. 1895)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Doss v. Waggoner, 3 Tex. 515 (1848) 18
Smith v. Chichester, 1 Cal. 409 (1851) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list