Parmely v. Boone

NO'TJRSE, P. J. —

The four named plaintiffs sued in one complaint upon four separate causes of action. The nature of each cause of action was that of a common count for money had and received and each involved purported sales of securities in violation of the Corporate Securities Act. One judgment was entered against defendant Pearley P. Boone, individually, awarding specific amounts to each of the named plaintiffs. This defendant has appealed upon a typewritten record. The appellant has raised six points which we will consider in order.

[519]

1. That he was not served with written notice of time and place of trial. He was present at and participated in the trial and thus waived written notice.

(Sheldon

v.

Landwehr,

159 Cal. 778, 782 [116 Pac. 44] ;

Estate of Wempe,

185 Cal. 557, 563 [197 Pac. 949]; 24 Cal. Jur. 725.)

2. That the trial court was without jurisdiction to entertain the second, third and fourth causes of action because in each the demand was less than two thousand dollars. Jurisdiction of the first cause is conceded. Hence the question is whether the superior court, having jurisdiction of one cause of action, may assume jurisdiction of another otherwise joinable cause of action in which the claim is below the jurisdiction of the superior court. The question is squarely answered in the affirmative in

Emery

v.

Pacific Employers Ins. Co.,

8 Cal. (2d) 663, 668 [67 Pac. (2d) 1046]. The court there said: “The two joinable causes of action together constitute the ‘case’ within the meaning of the jurisdictional provisions, and if the total demand of one of said plaintiffs against the defendant is beyond the jurisdiction of the municipal court, the superior court has jurisdiction of said-‘case’, including both causes of action. ’ ’

3. That there is a misjoinder of parties plaintiff and of causes of action. Under section 378 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is permissible for several plaintiffs to join in an action when they have a common interest in the subject of the action and the questions of law or fact which would arise are common to all the parties.