Maxfield v. Johnson (1866) · DecisionDepot

Maxfield v. Johnson

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

California Supreme Court Oct 15, 1866Published

Before: Sanderson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The Supreme Court lacks appellate jurisdiction because the amount in controversy, as defined by the ad damnum clause, is less than the three hundred dollar constitutional minimum.

Issues

Does the Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction over a claim for less than three hundred dollars?
Does a defendant's counterclaim exceeding the jurisdictional limit confer appellate jurisdiction?

Disposition. Appeal dismissed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This Court has no jurisdiction in this case. The amount sued for was only two hundred and ninety-eight dollars.”

“The ad da/nmum clause in the complaint is the test of jurisdiction, and the costs of the action constitute no part of the amount in controversy.”

“This question is unaffected by the fact that the defendant sets up a counterclaim in excess of three hundred dollars.”

Synopsis

Appeal from the County Court of the City and County of San Francisco.

The plaintiff commenced an action before a Justice of the Peace to recover judgment on an account for two hundred and ninety-eight dollars. The defendant answered, setting up a counterclaim in the sum of five hundred and seventy dollars.

Upon the trial the plaintiff obtained judgment for one hundred and seventy-five dollars, from which judgment the defendant appealed to the County Court. In the County Court the action was referred to a referee to try the issues and report a judgment. The referee reported a judgment in favor of plaintiff for one hundred and seventy dollars. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied by the County Court. The defendant then appealed from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial.

By the Court, Sanderson, J.: This Court has no jurisdiction in this case. The amount sued for was only two hundred and ninety-eight dollars. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court is fixed by the Constitution, and in this class of cases is limited to such as involve the sum of three hundred dollars, exclusive of interest, and it is not in the power of the Legislature to confer jurisdiction in cases where the demand, exclusive of interest, is less. The ad da/nmum clause in the complaint is the test of jurisdiction, and the costs of the action constitute no part of the amount in controversy. This question is unaffected by the fact that the defendant sets up a counterclaim in excess of three hundred dollars. He had no legal right to do so. He could set up only such a counterclaim as he could have sued upon in a Justice’s Court. (Prac. Act, Sec. 574.)

Appeal dismissed.

Maxfield v. Johnson

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief