Stevens v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Nov 14, 1930 No. Docket No. 7608.Published

Before: Craig

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The superior court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an action for a specific sum of $500, as the plaintiff's request for an accounting does not confer jurisdiction when a definite amount is alleged.

Issues

Does the superior court have jurisdiction over a claim for $500 in commissions?
Do allegations requesting an accounting confer jurisdiction when a definite sum is stated?

Disposition. Writ denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The superior court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action.”

“since the amount alleged to be due the plaintiff is elsewhere stated as a definite sum the averments are not sufficient to confer jurisdiction.”

CRAIG, Acting P. J.

By a complaint consisting of several counts or causes of action, the petitioner instituted a suit in the superior court for $500 alleged to have been earned as commission while in the employment of the defendants therein named. A demurrer interposed upon the ground that said court had no jurisdiction of the action was sustained, and the plaintiff has petitioned for a writ of

mcmdarmos

to require the overruling of the demurrer and a trial of the issues.

The superior court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action.

(Scott

Superior Court,

108 Cal. App. 764 [292 Pac. 290].) The complaint contains

[523]

certain allegations as to the inability of the plaintiff to ascertain the amount of business transacted by defendants, and prays an accounting, but since the amount alleged to be due the plaintiff is elsewhere stated as a definite sum the averments are not sufficient to confer jurisdiction.

(Kinley

Thelen,

158 Cal. 175 [110 Pac. 513].)

The writ is denied.

Thompson (Ira F.), J., and Archbald, J.,

pro tem.,

concurred.

Stevens v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief