Case ID: cal-unrep_1/html/0028-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MURRAY, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THOMPSON & BOOTH, Appellants, v. DANFORTH et al., Respondents.
    No. 1037;
    May 19, 1856.
    Judge — Attorney Acting as, by Consent of Parties. — A trial before an attorney, acting as judge under no authority other than the consent of the parties, is a nullity.
    APPEAL from Fourteenth Judicial District, Nevada County.
    McConnell & Stewart for appellants; Dunn & Hupp for respondents.
   MURRAY, C. J.

— This cause was tried in the court below, . by consent of parties, by an attorney and not by the judge. The defendants moved for a new trial, upon a statement signed by the person who tried the cause, which order was granted by the judge of the court. It is now insisted that the statement was inadmissible for the purposes of the motion on this appeal. The whole proceeding was a nullity. But even if it was not, we would not allow a party to avoid the consequences of his agreement by availing himself of the fruits of a judgment and denying the legitimate consequences of it at the same time.

Judgment affirmed.

I concur: Terry, J.