Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co. v. Broad

California Court of Appeal Dec 13, 1934 No. Civ. 9174Published

Before: Knight

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The superior court had proper jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer action because the total amount of trebled damages claimed exceeded the jurisdictional limit of the justice's court, and the trial court's subsequent judgment on the merits was proper.

Issues

Whether the superior court had jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action where the trebled damages exceeded the justice's court limit.
Whether the trial court's order vacating a prior dismissal was reviewable on appeal from the final judgment.
Whether the trial court erred in discharging the jury and entering judgment for the plaintiff based on admitted facts.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The determination of the question of jurisdiction depends upon the amount claimed in the ad damnum clause of the complaint”

“if the “whole amount to be adjudged” exceeds the limitation of the amount fixed by said code section, jurisdiction of the action is in the superior court and not in the justice’s court.”

“the question of the legality of the order of dismissal is a matter into which inquiry may not here be made.”

KNIGHT, J.

Defendant appeals from an adverse judgment in an action in unlawful detainer.

It is contended, first, that the superior court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the action; that on account of the amount of rental claimed, the justice’s court had exclusive jurisdiction thereof. We find no merit in the contention.

The determination of the question of jurisdiction depends upon the amount claimed in the

ad damnum

clause of the complaint

(Pratt

Welcome,

6 Cal. App. 475 [92 Pac. 500];

Harris

Seidell,

1 Cal. App. (2d) 410 [36 Pac. (2d) 1104]; 7 Cal. Jur. 692) at the time of the commencement of the action

(Gardiner

Royer,

167 Cal. 238 [139 Pac. 75]), and does not depend in any way upon the amount found upon trial to be due

(Todhunter

Smith,

219 Cal. 690 [28 Pac. 916];

Becker

Superior Court,

151 Cal. 313 [90 Pac. 689].) At the time these transactions took place section 1174 of the Code of Civil Procedure provided that in actions

[47]

in unlawful detainer the jury or the court, if the action be tried without a jury, shall assess the damages alleged and proved, occasioned to plaintiff by the unlawful detention of the premises, and shall find the amount of any rent due; and that judgment against the defendant guilty of unlawful detainer “may be entered in the discretion of the court either for the amount of damages and rent found due, or for three times the amount found”. And subdivision

Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co. v. Broad

AI Brief

KNIGHT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief