MR. CUSHING: Mr. President, knowing, as most of us do, the great efforts put forth by the Chairman of the Legislative Committee, and the number of times he went to the State Capitol in connection with the matters set forth in his report, in moving that the report be received and placed on file, I move that it be coupled with an expression of the thanks of this Association to the Chairman and the members of the Committee for their diligent and successful action in the accomplishment of what has been set forth in the report, which includes not only the passage of twentyone measures, but the defeat of others that would have been unwise and unsatisfactory legislation.

MR. WILLIAM J. HUNSAKER, of Los Angeles: I second the motion, Mr. President, and incidentally desire to call attention to a clerical error on the second page of the printed report, paragraph 9, where the reference should be to Section 1373, C. C. P., instead of C. C.

THE PRESIDENT: That is evidently an inadvertence. Mr. Secretary, will you note that and see that it is corrected?

MR. ALFRED HAINES: I note that on page 165 of the printed Proceedings of our last meeting, the principle of a bill which is to be found set forth on page 231 of the Proceedings was endorsed by the Association and referred to the Legislative Committee, with the statement that it was to be presented to the Legislature. I see no mention of that in the report of the Committee, and I ask if any of the Committee are present, so that, at a proper time, I may take such action as may result in presenting the same measure again to the Legislative Committee.

THE PRESIDENT: I know a little something about it, but not very much. The committee experienced some uncertainty in regard to just what the limits of the proposition were that were stated, and I think they were somewhat doubtful about being able to draft a bill, and no bill was drafted. It would perhaps be better if we could present a finished drafted bill to the Legislative Committee, than merely to present an idea to be put into the shape of a bill by them.

There is a motion before the house. It is the motion of Mr. Cushing, and the Chair would like to add to what Mr. Cushing has said as to the work of this committee, and particularly of the chairman, Mr. Evans, that Mr. Evans went

to Sacramento several times and made very forceful and very clear presentations of the measures under consideration to the committees. The sessions of the Judiciary Committee lasted until toward morning on some of the nights that he was there, and he did very painstaking and diligent and effective work. He was assisted in Sacramento very much by Mr. Butler, who was the resident member of the committee. The other members participated in the planning and the work on the bills. The motion, then, is, that the report of the Legislative Committee be received and filed, and that this Association express its thanks to the Legislative Committee, and particularly to its chairman, Mr. Perry Evans, for the very efficient and painstaking work done by the committee. Is there anything further to be said before the motion is put?

SENATOR E. P. SAMPLE: I desire, Mr. President, to avail myself of the opportunity to speak a word in commendation of Mr. Evans. There was not a man appeared before the last Legislature who carried any more weight than did Mr. Evans. It mattered not how late the sessions of the Judiciary Committee might be, we always stayed until Mr. Evans finished on every matter he had to present. I know he did a great service for the Bar Association and for the State of California in general. (Applause.)

(The motion was then put and declared carried.)

THE PRESIDENT: Before we leave this report, you will note that the committee reports that twenty-one of the measures proposed by this Association were adopted and became law. A less number failed of passage, some getting thru both houses and being pocketed or vetoed by the Governor, while others, I think, failed from want of time and want of consideration, and for other reasons. Whether those proposed measures that failed of adoption should be again, and at the present session of this body, without further consideration, sent to the Legislative Committee for presentation at the next session, or whether they should be sent back to the Sections which proposed them, to determine whether there are changed conditions, or whether anything was said and done about them in the Legislature that would make any change in them or any different disposition of them advisable -all that is for this Convention to say. The Association will meet again before the next Legislature holds its session.

MR. BLACK: I think it would be the part of wisdom, Mr. President, inasmuch as there must have been something

wrong with at least some of these proposed bills that did not pass, to send them back for further consideration by the Sections proposing them. I so move.

(The motion was seconded from the floor and adopted unanimously.)

MR. WALDO: The unlawful practice of the law act does not go back with that, I take it?

THE PRESIDENT: That act passed the Legislature and received the sanction of the Governor.

MR. BLACK: We can discuss that during the coming campaign.

THE PRESIDENT: The field is now open for the presentation of resolutions or motions from the floor. Are there any such to be presented?

Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict.

MR. HAINES: As I stated before, Mr. President, I would like to have this matter of the motion for a judgment non obstante veredicto, and for regulating the practice of the Supreme Court where the motion is denied, again before the convention. If there is no objection, I will proceed to discuss that now.

THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.

MR. HAINES: On page 331 of the proceedings of the Convention of 1920 the text of a proposed act adding a new section to the Code of Civil Procedure, to be known as Section 629, is set forth, and there is quite an elaborate note appended thereto, and I think it would be an excellent idea if the members of the Association would examine that with some care. I believe the passage of such an act would fill a needed want in our law. As I understand it, there is no such thing in this State as the practice of asking the court for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, upon examining Section 53, Code of Civil Procedure, I find no provision for having a judgment directed by the Supreme Court in the absence of findings. And, as the gentlemen of the Association will see by examining the comment made by me, as printed in the report of proceedings of the last Convention, the practice of motions for and the entry of judgment non obstante veredicto prevails in England, and prevails in many other states of this country, and will result in the final dispo

sition in the court below, or at least by a final judgment in the Appellate Court without the acceptance of a new trial, of many cases. Perhaps the proper way to handle this matter now would be to refer this matter again to. the Legislative Committee.

MR. C. E. McLAUGHLIN, of Sacramento: Inasmuch as the object, purpose and meaning of the bill seems to have been misunderstood by the Legislative Committee, I suggest that Judge Haines prepare a draft of a bill which will perhaps better bring to our attention concretely the purpose of the proposed legislation.

MR. HAINES: As just stated, Mr. President, the bill itself is set forth on page 331 of the report of our last Convention, and will there be found in the printed volume.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps my memory is at fault there. Was there not some objection made to that, and was it not understood that it was to be redrafted?

MR. HAINES: No. The action of the Convention upon the subject is set forth in the printed proceedings.

THE PRESIDENT: On what page?

MR. HAINES: On page 165. A motion was made that the Association endorse the principle of this bill, and that, in case it does so, it be referred to the Legislative Committee to be presented to the Legislature. That left it really for the committee to reframe it, and they did not succeed in doing so.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there a second to the motion, which is, as the chair understands it, that the matter be referred to the Section on Civil Procedure, Pleading and Practice, or do you desire to proceed now with the consideration of the matter?

MR. HAINES: If there is time now, I can introduce the matter, if it is now open for discussion. I merely did not want to press it upon the Convention now, unless it is so desired.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Unless there is a motion to refer it to the Section, it may as well be taken up and discussed at the present time.

MR. HAINES: In conversation with Judge Shaw of the Supreme Court about the principle of this bill, he said he favored it as in aid of the disposition of cases where it was clearly apparent that the case made for either plaintiff or

defendant would not be sustained, notwithstanding the court had submitted it to the jury and the jury had found a verdict.

In this State, and I speak subject to correction, but I think I am correct, the practice of moving the court for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is unknown. The only motion which is entertained, under our present practice, is for a new trial. Let us suppose a case where the evidence which must determine the case is entirely matter of record, and that the Judge, in his instructions to the jury, mistakes the law and submits the question as though it were open to decision as a question of fact. Suppose, then, the jury finds a verdict entirely contrary to the record evidence, which ought to determine the case under instructions of the court, and finds against such record evidence. There is then no remedy, so far as I know, in California, but a motion for a new trial, and if that is denied, the case goes to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court simply reverses the case and sends it back for a new trial. It can be seen in a moment how much time is taken in disposing of a perfectly clear case which should have been open to a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and which, if denied by the court below, could be. reversed by the court above and final judgment entered in the court above.

I wish, before this matter is finally disposed of, the gentlemen present might read the elaborate and rather tedious statement made by me in this record, and appearing from pages 331 to 340. I think if that be read, and if the cases mentioned be considered, it will readily be seen that this is a substantial amendment, needed in this State. The states which have adopted this legislation in this country are quite numerous. In certain of them the legislation has been worked out very excellently. On page 333 of the Proceedings of the 1920 meeting I state that the principle prevails in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Washington and Wisconsin. In Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and North Dakota, and perhaps other of the States above named, the provision for judgment in proper cases non obstante veredicto is made by statute. Section 4623 of the Revised Statutes of Wyoming provides that "when the case is reversed, the court shall order what judgment should be rendered". This seems to