Cook v. Superior Court

ELKINGTON, J.

Erma J. Stewart, the real party in interest in these proceedings, commenced a small claims action against Charles Schiveley, doing business as Mayer-Licht, and Herbert Cook, the petitioner here. She alleged that the defendants were indebted to her in the sum of $250; that she had demanded payment of said sum; and that defendants refused to pay the same and no part thereof had been paid. Judgment that plaintiff recover $225 from defendant Schiveley and take nothing from defendant Cook was thereafter entered. Defendant Schiveley appealed from the judgment. On a trial de novo in the superior court, judgment was ordered that the plaintiff recover $200 from defendant Cook and take nothing from defendant Schiveley.

On petition of defendant Cook we granted certiorari for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the superior court to enter judgment against a prevailing codefendant in the small claims court when no appeal had been taken (or could be taken (see Code Civ. Proc., § 117j)) by the plaintiff from the portion of the judgment affecting such defendant. The issue appears to be of first instance and its resolution is not readily apparent.

A consideration of the policy implicit in the Small Claims Court Act (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 117-117r) seems profitable. Section 117h states that “No formal pleading, other than the

[677]

said claim and notice, shall be necessary and the hearing and disposition of all such actions shall be informal, with the sole object of dispensing speedy justice-between the parties. ...”

Referring to small claims proceedings the court in

Prudential Ins. Co.

v.

Small Claims Court,

76 Cal.App.2d 379, 383 [173 P.2d 38, 167 A.L.R. 820], stated: “Justice should not be a rich man’s luxury. The Magna Carta guaranteed that justice would not be denied or delayed. Ever since 1215 those interested in the administration of justice have struggled, somewhat unsuccessfully to live up-to that promise so far as the poor litigant is concerned. The delay and expense incident to litigation have long discouraged the attempts of the-poor litigant to secure redress for claims meritorious but small in amount. These cases are relatively of as great importance to those litigants as those heard in our highest courts, but the expense of employing an attorney and paying normal court costs is more than the cause will bear. The solution to this problem arrived at not only by many states in the United States, but also in England and in many continental countries, has -been to create small claims or conciliation courts, where small claims may be prosecuted informally and without the cost, delay, or procedural difficulties incident to normal litigation. ...” Such policy, the court said, “has received the well-nigh universal approval of the public, the bar and the judiciary. ’ ’