Stephan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

THE COURT.

The facts in this case are that the plaintiff brought an action in the justice’s court for recovery of money on a contractual obligation, the recovery sought being for $201, so that the cause came within the jurisdiction of the justice’s court which extends only to action for less than three hundred dollars. The defendant filed an answer, the essence of which was a counterclaim against the plaintiff for five hundred dollars. Of this counterclaim the justice’s court did not have jurisdiction, since the recovery sought against the plaintiff upon it exceeded three hundred dollars.

(Malsof

v.

Vaughn,

23 Cal. 61;

Maxfield

v.

Johnson,

30 Cal. 545.) The justice^ gave judgment for plaintiff, either ignoring or deciding against the defendant’s counterclaim. ’ The defendant then appealed to the superior court on questions both of law and fact, so that that court had jurisdiction to try the case

de novo.

In the superior court the defendant amended her counterclaim so that it showed damage to the defendant by reason of the plaintiff’s alleged wrongful acts in the amount of two hundred dollars only, and sought to recover only this amount by having. it set off against the plaintiff’s claim. In other words, the counter

[675]

claim as so amended was one of which the justice’s court would originally have had jurisdiction. On the trial in the superior court, the court, over the objection of the plaintiff that it had no jurisdiction of the counterclaim, proceeded to try the issues presented by it, found in favor of the defendant thereon, and set off the amount thereof against the plaintiff’s claim, and gave judgment that the plaintiff take nothing. The plaintiff now asks for a writ of review annulling this judgment on the ground that the superior court had no jurisdiction of the counterclaim.