J. Dewing Co. v. Thompson
Before: Hall
Synopsis
Claim and Delivery—Value op Piano—Admission—Pleadings—Contrary Finding Disregarded.—In an action of claim and delivery for a piano, in which the pleadings are verified, and the complaint alleges that the value of the piano is $500, and the answer admits such value by failing to deny the same, a finding contrary to such admission that the value of the piano is only $200 is entirely without the issues made by the pleadings, and should be disregarded.
Id.—Admission op Jurisdictional Sum—Objection to Jurisdiction Based on Finding.—Where it is objected that the finding as to value deprived the superior court of jurisdiction over the action, it is a sufficient answer to such objection that the fact upon which the jurisdiction of the court depends was admitted by the answer to be such as unquestionably to support the jurisdiction of the court to determine the action upon its merits.
Id.—Test op Jurisdiction Over Value op Property—Demand op Complaint, Regardless op Finding—Costs.—If it be conceded that the court had power to find a less value than that admitted, still the test of the jurisdiction of the superior court to support a judgment for the value of the property claimed, if a delivery cannot be had, is determined by the value claimed and demanded in the complaint, and when that shows a value exceeding $300, it is sufficient to support the jurisdiction of the superior court as to the value of the property though a less sum be found, which cannot affect the test of jurisdiction, but only the loss of costs.
Id.—Double Aspect op Claim and Delivery—Recovery op Property— Recovery op Money—Jurisdiction Based on Complaint.—An action of claim and delivery has two aspects. In one aspect it is a suit to recover specific personal property described in the complaint. In the other aspect, it is a suit to recover a money demand, in respect of which the amount demanded in the complaint, exclusive of interest, determines the jurisdiction.
Id.—Appeal from Superior Court—Self-destructive Objection to Jurisdiction Based on Binding—Identical Grants of Jurisdiction.—An objection by an appellant from the judgment of the superior court to the jurisdiction of that court, based on its finding of value of $200, is held to be self-destructive. The original jurisdiction of the superior court and the appellate jurisdiction of the district courts of appeal are identical in “all cases at law, in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to three hundred dollars.” (Const., art. VI, secs. 4, 5.)
HALL, J.
In this action plaintiff brought suit in the superior court in claim and delivery to recover a piano. The piano is alleged in the complaint to be of the value of $500. Plaintiff also alleges damages in the sum of $100 expended in an effort to recover the piano, and prays for judgment for the possession of the piano or the sum of $500, the value thereof, in case a delivery thereof cannot be had, and for $100 as damages on account of costs incurred in the effort to recover the piano.
The court found the value of the piano to be $200, and gave judgment that plaintiff recover from defendant the piano, and in case recovery thereof cannot be had, that plaintiff recover from defendant the sum of $200, the value thereof.
Defendant subsequently moved the court, under sections 663 and 663a of the Code of Civil Procedure, to vacate and set aside said judgment, and to enter a judgment dismissing said action for want of jurisdiction of the superior court over said action.
[87]
The motion was denied, and the appeal is by defendant from this order.
The attack upon the jurisdiction of the court over the action is predicated solely upon the fact that the court found the value of the piano sued for to be $200. Counsel for appellant have devoted their energies to discussing the question as to whether or not the jurisdiction of the superior court in an action in claim and delivery depends upon the allegations of the complaint or the finding made by the court as to the value of the property in suit.
While the answer to this question is not difficult, the correctness of the ruling of the court does not, in our opinion, depend upon such answer.
The finding as to the value of the piano is entirely without the issues made by the pleadings. The complaint alleges in apt language the value of the piano to be $500, and there is no issue raised by the answer upon the allegations as to value. Defendant denied the ownership and right of possession of plaintiff, and the allegations concerning the expenditure of $100 in the effort to recover the piano, and set up a claim to the ownership and right of possession in the piano under a certain contract with plaintiff. But there is not one word in the answer in the record before us raising or attempting to raise any issue as to the value of the piano not being as alleged in the complaint. The pleadings were verified. The allegation of value not being denied, it was admitted to be as alleged, and the finding contrary to such admission should be disregarded. The fact upon which appellant claims the jurisdiction of the superior court depends was admitted by the answer to be such as to unquestionably support the original jurisdiction of the superior court to try and determine the action upon its merits.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)