Tujague v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Sep 26, 1924 No. Civ. No. 5034.Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that subtenants are not necessary parties in an unlawful detainer action and that a trial court does not exceed its jurisdiction by proceeding against a lessee without joining or serving notice to quit upon subtenants.

Issues

Whether subtenants are necessary parties in an unlawful detainer action.
Whether a trial court exceeds its jurisdiction in an unlawful detainer action by failing to serve notice to quit on subtenants or join them as parties.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the subtenants, if any there are, are not necessary parties defendant, and even though they are, that there is no excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court shown by, the petition before us.”

“it will be observed that the point has less merit in an unlawful detainer action than in an ordinary civil action at law.”

[36]

STURTEVANT, J.

This is an application for a writ of prohibition. Heretofore the court granted an alternative writ based on the affidavit of the petitioner. Later the defendants appeared and filed a demurrer and an answer and a hearing yms had on questions of law.

The point on which the petitioners rely in asking that the writ be made peremptory is this, they assert that heretofore Theresa Simons as the owner commenced an action of unlawful detainer against these" petitioners as lessees; that the petitioners appeared and answered; that judgment was rendered in favor of the landlady and that the whole proceeding was in excess of jurisdiction because the subtenants, thirty-nine in number, were not served with the notice to quit, nor were they made parties to the action, and for that reason the trial court in the unlawful detainer action exceeded its jurisdiction.

In their application for a writ the petitioners pleaded

in Tiaec verba,

the complaint and its exhibits, the demurrer of the defendants, the amended complaint, the answer to the amended complaint, the lease and the writ of execution. No claim is made that the petitioners did not present in proper form at a proper time to the trial court the contention which is now being presented to this court. It is therefore unnecessary to state the proceedings had and taken in the trial court.

Turning to the complaint in the unlawful detainer action, it will be conceded that on its face it seems to be regular in every respect. Nothing appears on the face of that complaint showing that there are, or that there are not, any subtenants. No relief was asked against any person except the lessee. No question is made but what a notice to quit was served on the lessees and that the trial court obtained jurisdiction of the person of each of the lessees. When the answer came in the lessees pleaded therein the fact that there were thirty-nine subtenants; that no one of them was served with the notice to quit, and that no one of them was made a party. The petitioners claim that the unlawful detainer proceeding is a special proceeding and that in such a case “the mode in such cases constitutes the measure of the power” of the trial court. As we understand the defendants, they do not controvert that proposition, but they claim

Tujague v. Superior Court

AI Brief

STURTEVANT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief