Bartnett v. Hull
Before: Hall
Synopsis
Appeal from Justice’s Court—Questions of Law and Fact—Want of Jurisdiction Appearing on Face of Record—Seasonable Objection—Dismissal.—Where an appeal from the justice’s court is taken both upon questions of law and of fact, but its want of jurisdiction to try the case appears upon the face of the record, and a seasonable objection to the want of jurisdiction is urged in the superior court, the appellant is entitled to an order dismissing the action for want of jurisdiction to try it upon its merits.
Id.—Uncertainty of Complaint as to Jurisdiction—Acquiescence in Jurisdiction—Estoppel.—Where the complaint is uncertain or ambiguous or susceptible of two interpretations as to its meaning, and all parties to the action appear to have adopted or acquiesced in an interpretation that sustains the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action, the losing party in such action should not be allowed, upon appeal, for the first time, to insist upon a different interpretation of the pleading that will oust the court of its jurisdiction.
Id.—Jurisdiction of Justice’s Court and of Superior Court—Dismissal of Appeal to District Court of Appeal.—Where the record on appeal to the district court of appeal from the judgment of the superior court rendered upon appeal from the justice’s court shows that the sum claimed in the justice’s court, exclusive of interest, was less than $300, and that the justice’s court had original jurisdiction of the action, and that the superior court had appellate jurisdiction to try the same upon its merits, it follows that the district court of appeal has no jurisdiction upon appeal from the judgment of the superior court, other than to order a dismissal thereof.
HALL, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment for plaintiff, rendered by the superior court, in the sum of $271, together with interest thereon at the legal rate to date of judgment, amounting to $97.20.
The action was brought in the justice court, where it was tried upon the issues raised by the answer of defendant to the complaint. The justice of the peace rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the principal sum of $235.05, together with interest in the sum of $75.47.
Defendants appealed to the superior court upon questions of law and fact.
Before the cause came on for trial in the superior court defendants moved said court to dismiss the action upon the ground that neither the justice court nor the superior court had jurisdiction of the action, for the reason, as defendants claimed, that it appeared upon the face of plaintiff’s complaint that the amount sued for exceeded the sum of $300,
[93]
exclusive of interest. The motion was denied. Subsequently when the cause was called for trial upon its merits defendants renewed their motion, and it was again denied, and the court tried the cause upon its merits.
At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence defendants moved for a nonsuit upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction for the same reasons as were urged upon the motion to dismiss.
We believe the law to be that where, as in this case, a defendant, after appealing to the superior court upon questions of law and fact, seasonably challenges the jurisdiction of the court to try the action upon its merits, by reason of want of jurisdiction of the justice court over the subject matter of the action appearing upon the face of the record, such defendant is entitled to a judgment or order dismissing the action for want of jurisdiction to try it upon its merits.
(Ballerino
v.
Bigelow,
90 Cal. 500, [27 Pac. 372];
Hoban
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)