Hopkins v. Anderson

PRESTON, J.

The District Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One (opinion by Gray, J.,

pro tern.),

disposed of this cause as follows:

“On April 5, 1928, respondent commenced in the superior court of Los Angeles county this action to foreclose a chattel mortgage, securing a note in the principal sum of $750, of which a balance of $550 was then due, owing and unpaid. The action was tried on January 30, 1929. Findings of- fact and judgment were signed and filed on June 8, 1929. Appellants urge for reversal the alleged lack of jurisdiction in such superior court to foreclose the chattel mortgage, because the amount involved was less than $1,000.

“ At the commencement of this action, the jurisdiction of the superior court was defined by article VI, section 5, of the state Constitution as follows: ‘The superior courts shall have original jurisdiction in all cases in equity and in all cases at law, which involve the title or possession of real

[65]

property, or the legality o£ any tax, impost, assessment, toll, or municipal fine, and in all other cases,

except as hereinafter provided,

in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to three hundred dollars, and in all criminal cases amounting to a felony, and in all cases of misdemeanor

not otherwise provided for;

of actions for forcible or unlawful entry or detainer,

except as otherwise provided

in this article; of proceedings in insolvency; of actions to prevent or abate a nuisance; of all matters of probate; of divorce and for annulment of marriage; and of all such special cases and proceedings as are

not otherwise provided for;

and said courts shall have the power of naturalization, and to issue papers therefor.’ (Italics ours.)