Dunne v. Hite

California Court of Appeal Oct 18, 1922 No. Civ. No. 2493.Published

Before: Burnett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the justice court had jurisdiction over the underlying action because the principal amount claimed was under $300, and therefore the attachment bond executed to prevent the levy of a writ of attachment was valid and enforceable.

Issues

Whether the justice court lacked jurisdiction because the amount claimed in the underlying action exceeded $300.
Whether the attachment bond was void due to an alleged lack of jurisdiction in the justice court.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is no valid objection to the jurisdiction of the justice court that the amount claimed exceeds the sum of $300, provided the action is upon a contract and the amount claimed, exclusive of interest, is less than $300.”

“The justice court having jurisdiction of the cause, the amount being composed of $280 principal and $24.93 interest, undoubtedly had authority to issue a writ of attachment for said sum.”

BURNETT, J.

The action was upon a bond, executed by appellants, to prevent the levy of a writ of attachment issued out of the justice court of Marysville township in the county of Tuba, in an action wherein respondents herein were plaintiffs and one W. C. Trefry was defendant. The plaintiffs

[371]

therein obtained judgment against said Trefry in the sum of $280 principal sum and $24.93 interest, and costs of suit. Execution on said judgment was issued and returned unsatisfied. Whereupon this suit was brought in the superior court of said county of Yuba upon said bond to recover the amount of said judgment. The appeal is from the judgment on the judgment-roll.

Said undertaking was in the following form:

“ (Title of Court and Cause.)

“Undertaking to Constable to Prevent Attachment.

“Whereas, the above named plaintiffs have commenced an action in the Justice’s Court of Marysville Township, County of Yuba, State of California, against the above named defendant, claiming that there is due to said plaintiffs from said defendant, the sum of three hundred and four and 93/100 dollars, or thereabouts, and thereupon an attachment issued against the property of said defendant as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered therein;

“And whereas, the constable of said Marysville Township is about to levy upon certain property and effects of said defendant under and by virtue, of said writ of attachment;

“And whereas, the said defendant is desirous that said property shall not be attached and seized by said constable, by virtue of said writ;

“Now, therefore, we the undersigned, residents and house holders in the County of Yuba, State of California, in consideration of the premises, and also in consideration of said property above mentioned not being attached or seized by said constable by virtue of said writ of attachment, do hereby jointly and severally undertake in the sum of six hundred and fifty (650) dollars, and promise that if the plaintiffs shall recover judgment in the said action, defendant will, on demand, pay to plaintiffs the amount of whatever judgment may be recovered in said action, together with the percentage, interest and costs, and as required by the terms of the judgment, and if defendant shall not so pay, we will.

Dunne v. Hite

AI Brief

BURNETT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief