McDermott v. Isbell (1854) · DecisionDepot

McDermott v. Isbell

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jan 15, 1854Published

Before: Heydeneeldt, Murray, Wells

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A party who initiates a replevin action in a court lacking jurisdiction is estopped from asserting that lack of jurisdiction or their own ownership of the property as a defense in an action on the replevin bond.

Issues

Whether a party may assert a lack of jurisdiction in the original court as a defense in an action on a replevin bond.
Whether a party may assert ownership of the replevied property as a defense in an action on a replevin bond.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a party who avails himself of the process of an inferior Court, cannot escape the responsibility of his own act, upon the ground that such tribunal had no jurisdiction over the subject matter in controversy.”

“Neither can he be allowed to show that the property so replevied was his own.”

Synopsis

Appeal from the Fifth Judicial District.

This was a suit upon a replevin bond for $1,500. The complaint alleges that the bond was conditioned to prosecute a replevin suit, before a Justice of the Peace, of said Isbell against McDermott for a wagon and three yoke of oxen, or their return, in case of judgment against Isbell; that the property was delivered to Isbell under the process of the Justice, on the execution of the bond; that the Justice decided he had no jurisdiction of the action, and entered a judgment that the property be restored to Mc-Dermott; and that Isbell had failed to restore the property to the pliantiff.

The defense to the action is stated in the opinion of the Court.

There was a verdict for plaintiff for $750, and judgment accordingly, from which the defendants appealed.

*Mr. Ch. J. Murray [114] delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. J. Heydeneeldt and Wells concurred. It has been frequently held by this Court that a party who avails himself of the process of an inferior Court, cannot escape the responsibility of his own act, upon the ground that such tribunal had no jurisdiction over the subject matter in controversy.

Consequently, a party who sues out a writ of replevin from a Justice of the Peace having no jurisdiction, and obtains the property, in an action on the replevin bond cannot set up as a defense the want of the jurisdiction of the Justice.

Neither can he be allowed to show that the property so replevied was his own. The conditions of the bond are to prosecute the suit with success, or return the property. The fact that the defendant had commenced his action before a tribunal incompetent to try the matter in dispute is no defense, and the plea that the title to the property so replevied was in him, is bad, and was properly stricken out by the Court. (See Flagg v. Tyler, 3 Mass. 303; Gibbs v. Bartlett, 2 Watts & S. 29.

Judgment of the Court below affirmed.

Or. 313.

McDermott v. Isbell

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief