[10] Nor does it avail plaintiffs to rely on the principle of judicial notice in support of their present plea of res judicata. While a trial court is bound to take judicial notice of its own records in the same action (20 Am.Jur., Evidence, ยง 86, p. 104; 10 Cal.Jur., Evidence, ยง 52, p. 728; Craiglow v. Williams, 45 Cal.App. 514, 516 [ 188 P. 76]; Schomer v. R.L. Craig Co., 137 Cal.App. 620, 627 [31 P.2d 396]; Mason v. Drug, Inc., 31 Cal.App.2d 697, 701 [ 88 P.2d 929]; In re Reader, 32 Cal.App.2d 309, 313 [ 89 P.2d 654]), and matters which are subject of judicial notice are not dependent upon either pleading or proof for their effectiveness in the determination of issues before the court (20 Am.Jur., Evidence, ยง 25, p. 54; 10 Cal.Jur., Evidence, ยง 25, p. 698; Altoona Quicksilver Mining Co. v. IntegralQuicksilver Mining Co., 114 Cal. 100, 103 [45 P. 1047]), the judgment entered against defendant Wilcox upon the conclusion of the first trial did not operate as a matter of law to conclude the rights of his copartners, defendants Bower and Thorley. As so viewed, the situation here is akin to that existing when the former judgment, available in bar of the retrial of an issue, was entered not in the same, but in a different action, and proper evidence in proof of its effectiveness as a prior adjudication must be made in
Under the provisions of C. S., sec. 6949, in the case of a chattel mortgage securing the payment of a promissory note there can be but one action for the enforcement of the debt secured thereby, and where the plaintiff sues upon the note and prosecutes it to judgment, this constitutes a waiver of the remedy by foreclosure of the mortgage. ( Craiglow v. Williams, 45 Cal.App. 514, 188 P. 76; Brown v. Willis, 67 Cal. 235, 7 Pac. 682; McKeen v. Gerynan American Sav. Bank, 118 Cal. 334, 50 P. 656; Woodward v. Brown, 119 Cal. 283, 63 Am. St. 108, 51 P. 2, 542; Meyer v. Weber, 133 Cal. 681, 65 Pac. 1110; Crisman v. Lanterman, 149 Cal. 647, 117 Am. St. 167, 87 Pac. 89; Gnarini v. Swiss American. Bank, 162 Cal. 181, 121 Pac. 726.
Of the filing of that petition and the making of that order the trial court, on the hearing of the last petition, was bound to take judicial notice. ( Craiglow v. Williams, 45 Cal.App. 514, 516 [ 188 P. 76].) The order made on the original petition had become res judicata.
On appeal that judgment was reversed because the trial court did not take notice of its own records. ( Craiglow v. Williams, 45 Cal.App. 514 [ 188 P. 76]; see, also, People v. Clinton, 78 Cal.App. 451 [ 248 P. 929]; People v. Rhodes, 137 Cal.App. 385 [ 30 P.2d 1026]; Schomer v. R.L. Craig Co., 137 Cal.App. 620 [ 31 P.2d 396]; 15 R.C.L. 1113.) If the trial court had granted the motion of United Drug Company to strike and had failed and refused to pass on its demurrer, a more simple question would have been presented.
We do not know whether or not the trial judge had actual knowledge of the contents of the report but such knowledge is not essential because inasmuch as the report becomes a part of the record in the proceeding the court has judicial knowledge of its contents. Williams v. Wheeler, 131 Ark. 581, 199 S.W. 898 (1917); Dillard v. McKnight, 34 Cal.2d 209, 209 P.2d 387 (1949); Craiglow v. Williams, 45 Cal.App. 514, 188 P. 76 (1920); Baca v. Catron, 24 N M 242, 173 P. 862 (1917); In re Whitish, 47 Wn.2d 652, 289 P.2d 340 (1955); McCormick on Evidence, ยง 327; cf. State ex rel. Harner v. Karpe, 151 La 585, 92 So. 124 (1922). In the instant case, then, the trial court judicially knew that if the report was accurate the respondent was opposed to the adoption of her child.
However, in passing, attention is called to the declaration that "the trial court is bound to take judicial notice of the files of its own court," made with reference to the files of the particular case before the court. ( Craiglow v. Williams, 45 Cal.App. 514, 188 P. 76.) These files are not in the transcript, and, as all of the evidence is not, therefore, before us, we cannot inquire into the correctness of the court's computation.
Moreover, the case CIFAC principally relies on, Craiglow v. Williams (1920) 45 Cal.App. 514, is inapposite. There, the defendant answered a complaint and admitted it was a surety on the debt alleged in the complaint.