Consolidated Adjustment Co. v. Superior Court
Before: Shaw
SHAW, C. J.
This is a proceeding in prohibition to prevent the superior court of the county of Sonoma from assuming jurisdiction and proceeding with the trial of an action' therein, entitled William Evart et al., Plaintiffs,
versus
Consolidated Adjustment Company of California, Defendant.
The petition is based upon the proposition that the complaint in the action shows that the cause of action set forth therein is for the recovery of money to the amount of $148.23 and no more, and that the superior court has no jurisdic
[94]
tion of a cause of action to recover less than $300. The question for determination is whether or not said complaint sets forth a cause of action for the recovery of $300, or more.
The complaint alleges that in April, 1918, plaintiffs and defendant entered into a contract, whereby, in consideration of the payment by plaintiffs to defendant of $148.23, and the agreement to pay commissions on collections thereafter made by defendant of claims due to the plaintiffs, the defendant agreed to act in behalf of plaintiffs for the period of three years in the prosecution and adjustment of claims aggregating $3,650.37. The agreement then proceeded as follows:
“The Consolidated Adjustment Company of California guarantees that it will recover in cash, or secured net settlement, from the claims of said client at least $518.80, or to refund the full initial fee paid at the termination of this contract.”
It also contained a reservation by the defendant of the righj; to rescind the contract within twelve months, which is immaterial here. The complaint then proceeds to allege that thereupon the plaintiffs delivered to defendant for prosecution and adjustment the claims referred to in said contract and paid the defendant said initial fee of $148.23; that said agreement had terminated on April 29, 1921; that defendant has not recovered $518.80 on said claims, or any other sum whatever, and has not refunded to plaintiffs, or either of them, the initial fee aforesaid at the termination of the contract or at all. Thereupon the complaint prayed for $518.80.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)