Abraham v. King

LANGDON, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant. The judgment was for the dismissal of an action in claim and delivery, and for the return of certain personal property or- the value thereof in the sum of $1,500 and for damages for the detention thereof in the sum of $148 and for costs.

The action was originally commenced in the superior court of the county of Sacramento. The defendants appeared and moved for a change of venue to the city and county of San Francisco, on the ground of the residence of the defendant L. C. King in said city and county. It appeared from the affidavit filed in support of this motion that the defendant Pacific Wrecking Company was not a legal entity, and that that name had been used by the defendant King as a trade name in carrying on one contract. It appeared, therefore, that said King was the only defendant in the action. The motion for the change of venue was duly granted and the papers in the case transmitted to the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, where they were received on October 4, 1918. On October 5, 1919, the superior court rendered the judgment of dismissal under section 581b of the Code of Civil Procedure, and further recited in said judgment that the action was for the recovery of the possession of personal property and that the personal property described in the complaint herein was in said action taken from the defendant L. C. King and delivered to the plaintiffs. It was then adjudged and decreed “that the defendant L. C. King do have and recover of and from the plaintiffs N. Abraham and M. Davidson, that certain lot of second-hand machinery, iron and junk more fully described in plaintiffs’ complaint herein, or the value thereof, to wit: the sum of $1,500 in case a return cannot be had, together with $148 damages for the detention thereof by the plain

[705]

tiff, together also with defendant’s costs and disbursements incurred in said action, amounting to the sum of $5.50.” The appellant contends that under the facts of this case the trial court has no power or jurisdiction to enter a dismissal of the action, and that assuming that the court had the power to dismiss the action, it had no power or jurisdiction to enter an alternative judgment and the power of the court was limited to a dismissal only.

[1]