Solomon v. Reese
Before: Sandersok
Synopsis
Jurisdiction op District Courts.—In actions for the recovery of money, the District Court has jurisdiction, if the sum sued for amounts to three hundred dollars exclusive of interest, regardless of the sum for which judgment may be obtained.
Jurisdiction op Supreme Court.—The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review all cases which the District Courts have jurisdiction to try, no matter what the judgment of the District Court may have been.
Idem.—S. sued E. to recover five hundred and fifty dollars, but recovered only three hundred and thirty-two dollars and sixty-one cents ; S. appealed : held, that the amount sued for, and not the difference between that amount and the amount recovered, is the test of the jurisdiction of this Court.
Case Overruled.—Dictum in Votan v. Beese, 20 Cal. 90, as to jurisdiction, overruled.
Statement of Grounds of Appeal.—If the appeal is taken on the judgment roll alone, the transcript need not contain a statement of the grounds of the appeal.
Stipulation as to Transcript.—If the transcript does not contain all the judgment roll, but contains all that is necessary, the defect is waived by a stipulation that it contains all that is necessary for the purposes of the appeal.
Judgment Roll in Transcrict.—It is not necessary to insert in the transcript on appeal such parts of the judgment roll as are of no use for the purposes of the 6 appeal.
Exceptions to Findings.—It is not necessary to take exceptions to the findings of the Court below, if the appellant attacks only the conclusions of law drawn from the facts found.
Suit for Money deposited as Security.—M. sued L. and attached his property ; R. and J., as securities, signed an undertaking on behalf of L. to procure a release of the attached property ; R. signed at the request of S. •, S. deposited with R. a sum of money to secure him against any loss or damage which he might sustain by reason of his signing the undertaking : held, that the relation of principal and surety did not exist between S. and R., and that if a suit was brought on the undertaking, R. could not retain out of the money deposited by S., any costs and expenses incurred in defending the action.
Idem.—In such case, if S. and J. tender to M. the amount of his judgment against L., and he refuses it, their liability to him ceases, and S. may recover his money bank.
By the Court, Sandersok, J.: I. The point made by the respondent, that this Court has no jurisdiction, is not tenable. In actions for the recovery of money this Court has jurisdiction, if “ the demand, exclusive of interest, amounts to three hundred dollars.” (Cons., [33]Art. VI, Sec. 4.) The demand, exclusive of interest, in this case, amounts to five hundred and fifty dollars. The language of the Constitution in respect to the jurisdiction of this Court is the same as it is in respect to the jurisdiction of the District Court, and there can be, therefore, no difference in the rules by which questions as to jurisdiction of the subject matter are to be determined in the two Courts. For the purpose of ascertaining whether the District Court has jurisdiction we look to the complaint, and in this class of cases, if the sum sued for amounts to three hundred dollars, exclusive of interest, that Court has jurisdiction, and by parity of reason this Court has jurisdiction on appeal. The amount sued for, exclusive of interest, is the test of the jurisdiction of this Court as well as of that of the District Court, regardless of the judgment of the latter Court. We dissent entirely from the dictum of the Court in the case of Votan v. Reese, 20 Cal. 90, to the effect that where the plaintiff recovers in the District Court less than he sues for, the test of the jurisdiction of this Court, in the event the plaintiff appeals, is the difference between the judgment of the District Court and the demand made in the complaint, exclusive of interest. All civil cases which the District Courts have jurisdiction to try, this Court has jurisdiction to review, no matter what the judgment of the District Court may have been. If the plaintiff sues to recover a demand for five hundred dollars, and the District Court gives him a judgment for three hundred only, his demand does not thereby become converted into a demand for two hundred dollars, for the purposes of an appeal, should he be dissatisfied with the judgment and desire to bring his case to this Court. On the contrary, in the sense of the Constitution, his demand in this Court is precisely the same that it was in the Court below, and is to be ascertained by looking to the complaint and not by deducting the judgment of the District Court from the demand alleged in the complaint. In other words, the ad damnum clause in the complaint is the test of [34]
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)