Court Opinion

ID: 9864528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:49:03.125117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:22.947797
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
This matter is before the court on a petition for rehearing. In our former opinion (ante, p. 299 [224 Pac. 250]) we held that there was no evidence justifying the finding of the trial court that the second causo of action set out in plaintiff’s complaint had been assigned to him. The evidence on this point appearing in the transcript is set out in that opinion.
It is now insisted by respondent that: “An appellate court will assume the existence of facts which were assumed to exist in the court below, notwithstanding the fact that they were put in issue by the pleadings.” To support this statement a number of cases have been cited. The respondent’s statement of the law we readily concede to be *304correct "but the authorities cited fail to support the application of the principle contained in said statement to the cause at bar. An examination of the cases all show that something was said or done which justified the assumption of the existence of the facts necessary to appear and to be made to appear in order to support the judgment. We only need to cite one case in this state which illustrates this point, National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Nason, 21 Cal. App. 297, 299 [131 Pac. 755, 756), where the circumstances taking place in the case are all set forth preceding the statement of the law by the court in that cause as hereinabove quoted.
We have searched the record in vain to ascertain if anything occurred to dispense with the testimony showing an assignment of the cause of action to the plaintiff and we find nothing therein except what is set forth in our first opinion in this case.
This case is very similar in principle upon this point to that of Rudneck v. Southern California M. & R. Co., 184 Cal. 274 [193 Pac. 775], That was an action begun by a partnership in which the complaint alleged compliance with sections 2466 and 2468 of the Civil Code, that is, that the certificate of copartnership was filed as required by law and also published as required by law. This allegation was controverted in the answer. At the trial the plaintiff proved the filing of the partnership certificate but introduced no evidence of its publication and went to trial upon the other issues presented by the pleadings. The court found that such publication was made. This finding was held to be without support in the evidence. The point was made that the objection was waived and the court answered as follows: “As to the waiver, suffice it to say that we find nothing to justify the claim that it occurred.” The issue was in the case and the burden of proof rested upon the party having the affirmative and there being no evidence to support the affirmative allegation only one result could follow. The finding was without support unless waived and there being nothing in the record showing the waiver a reversal of the case was necessary. As we read the record in this case it presents simply a question of failure of proof upon what might be considered a minor issue and we cannot hold such failure to be a waiver of the necessary proof simply because more attention was given by the respective *305parties to what might he called the more important issues involved in the controversy.
However, in the reconsideration of this cause and in view of the two cases decided by the supreme court of this state which we will hereafter consider, we think the necessities of justice demand a modification of the former order made by this court.  With this in mind, we have carefully read all the evidence in the transcript and conclude that there was sufficient evidence presented to the trial court to sustain its findings on the question of damages both as to the first and also as to the second causes of action set forth in plaintiff’s complaint and that there is a failure of evidence only as to the finding as to the right of this plaintiff to maintain the second cause of action by assignment thereof to him by the owner of the damaged automobile. Therefore, in remanding the cause for further hearing, pursuant to section 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we think the further proceedings in the trial court should be limited to the determination of the one issue, that is, the ascertainment if the second cause of action was actually assigned to the plaintiff prior to the commencement thereof. In the case of Collins v. Ramish, 182 Cal. 360 [182 Pac. 360], the supreme court, in considering what directions should be given where a judgment is reversed for insufficiency of evidence to sustain a finding, says: “No good reason appears why the new trial that must be had should not be limited to the matters in regard to which error has been shown,” and ordered the new trial limited to the one issue. In the case of Budneck v. Southern California M. & R. Co., supra, the case to which we have above referred where no proof was made as to the publication of certificate of copartnership, the cause was reversed and sent back for trial upon that one issue, the judgment of the court being as follows: “Judgment reversed for a new trial, in accordance with this opinion, upon the single issue as to publication by the plaintiffs of their certificate of partnership, as required by law, with directions that if such issue be determined in favor of the plaintiffs, judgment be given for them in accordance with the findings upon the other issues of the cause, and that if such issue be found against the plaintiffs, the action be dismissed without prejudice.”
*306All the other issues in this cause having been fully and fairly tried and no error in any of them having been called to the attention of this court, there appears to us no reason why a new trial ordered in this case as to the second cause of action should not be limited to the issue relating to the assignment thereof to the plaintiff herein.
It is therefore directed that the order heretofore entered in this cause should be and the same is hereby modified to read as follows: That the order heretofore made as to the plaintiff’s second cause of action is hereby reversed and remanded to the lower court for a new trial in accordance with this opinion upon the single issue as to whether said second cause of action was assigned to the plaintiff by the owner of the damaged automobile prior to the commencement of the action and if the testimony introduced on this question satisfies the trial court that such assignment was made, then and in that case judgment should be entered in favor of the plaintiff upon the second cause of action set forth in plaintiff’s complaint fixing the amount of damages as already sufficiently found by the trial court. If the testimony does not show such assignment of the second cause of action herein referred to, then and in that case judgment is hereby directed to be entered in favor of the defendant. In all other respects the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. It is further ordered that the appellant recover his costs incurred on this appeal.
Petition for rehearing denied.