Fraser v. Freelon
Synopsis
Cebtiobabi—Pbactioe.—The writ should be directed to the Court whose proceedings are to be reviewed, and not to the Judge of the Court.—[Repobteb.] Same. — The return should be made by the Clerk of the Court, and not by the Judge.—[Repobteb.]
Same — What Constitutes the Retubn. — A transcript of the record and proceedings in an action constitute the return to the writ of review, issued for the purpose of determining whether the Court in which the action was determined exceeded its jurisdiction, and no other document will be examined in passing upon that question.
Excess ob Jubisdiction.—If the Court failed to acquire jurisdiction, either of the cause of action or of the parties to the action, the Court exceeded its ■ jurisdiction in rendering judgment.
The People a Necessaby Pabty.—The question whether the act establishing the Court is constitutional and valid cannot be litigated in an action of this character brought by a private person, for the reason that the People are interested, and are entitled to be heard in the matter.
By the Court : The writ of review in this case was issued by the District Court to the Judge of the Municipal Court of Appeals of San [645]Francisco, to bring up for review the record and proceedings in an action which was heard and determined by that Court, on appeal from the judgment of a Justice of the Peace. The record before us presents some irregularities in respect to the direction of the writ to the Judge instead of the Court, and in respect also to the return which is made by the Judge instead of the Clerk; but these irregularities may be deemed to have been waived.
The transcript which is required to be certified to the Court for review, is a transcript of the record and proceedings in the action—if it be an action—in which it is alleged that the Court has exceeded its jurisdiction, and a transcript of such record and proceedings constitute the return, and the only return that can be considered under the writ. The only record returned to the District Court consists of a copy of the judgment rendered in the action, and a copy of an entry in the register of actions. There is appended thereto certain clerical entries in the minutes of the proceedings of the Court, consisting of the commission of the Judge and his oath of office, the opening of the Court, and the order of the County Court transferring all civil appeal cases therein pending to the Municipal Court of Appeals. But these clerical entries do not appear to be portions of the record or proceedings in the action, nor do they bear any relation thereto, unless it be the order of transfer. But it does not appear that the cause was transferred from the County Court. Those entries, therefore, cannot be considered in determining the question whether the Court exceeded its jurisdiction.
The question for determination is: Does the transcript of the record and proceedings in that action show that the Court exceeded its jurisdiction ? If the Court failed to acquire jurisdiction of the cause of action, or of the parties, it exceeded its jurisdiction in hearing and determining the action.
The only power conferred upon the Court by the Act of April 1st, 1878, establishing the Court, is prescribed by the tenth and twelfth sections. Sec. 10 provides that the Court “shall have the same power and jurisdiction in civil appeal cases as is possessed by the said County Court ”; and sec. 12 provides that the Court may hear and determine civil appeal [646]
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)