Case ID: cal_2/html/0474-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Heydemeldt, Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DAVID HOAGLAND, Appellant, v. WILLIAM CLARY, Respondent.
    Where a cause is tried by a Judge alone, without a jury,"the record must disclose a finding by him of the facts, and a statement of his conclusions of law upon the case.
    Without such finding and statement, there is no basis to support the judgment.
    Where on appeal from a county court to a district court, the record did not disclose such finding and statement, this Court reversed the judgment of the District Court, affirming the judgment of the County Court; and also reversed the judgment of the County Court, and remanded the case for a new trial.
    Appeal from the Eleventh Judicial District, Yuba County. This case came before the District Court, by appeal from the County Court of Yuba County.
    When the cause came on to be heard before the District Court, the defendant moved to dismiss the appeal, for the reason, that there was no statement filed, as required by law.
    There were other reasons assigned, but the one above mentioned, was the only one considered by the Supreme Court.
    The appellant produced, in answer to the motion, the statement of the case made out and settled by the presiding Judge of the County Court of Yuba county, and also the original papers transmitted from the justice of peace before whom the case was originally tried.
    The action was brought under the act of April 22nd, 1850, concerning “ forcible entries and unlawful detainers,” for the recovery of certain premises described in the record.
    The testimony in the case was taken down at length, and read before the county Judge, to whom the case was submitted without a jury; who found a verdict, and rendered judgment of restitution, for the plaintiff. Defendant appealed to the District Court.
    The testimony taken, and the proceedings in the case, were certified to the District Court.
    The case was heard upon the appeal by the District Court, Nov. 22nd, 1851, who affirmed the judgment of the County
    
      Court, and rendered judgment that plaintiff recover the possession of the premises, &c., and costs.
    Defendant then appealed from the judgment of the District Court, rendered on the appeal taken from the County Court, and “from the whole judgment in the case.”
    A statement of the evidence and proceedings in the case before both the County and District Courts, was made and certified to, by the Judge of the District Court; and this formed the statement sent up to the Supreme Court, and to which exception was taken.
   Heydemeldt, Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We have before decided in Russell v. Amador, that where a case is tried by the Judge alone, the record must disclose a finding by him of the facts, and a statement of his conclusions of law. And without such finding and statement, there was no basis for the judgment to be supported. The District Court therefore erred in affirming the judgment of the County Court. The judgment of the District Court is therefore reversed, and judgment is here rendered, reversing the judgment of the County Court, and remanding the case for a new trial. Costs to abide the event of the suit.