Aucker v. McCoy

McKee, J.: This was an action of ejectment to recover possession of a parcel of land described in the complaint, of which the defendants were in possession at the commencement of the action. The plaintiff concedes that the defendants were at one time the owners of the land; but he claims that their title has been transferred to him by a constable’s deed, made and delivered to him in the consummation of a forced sale, under an execution which had been issued upon a judgment against the defendants, and was levied upon the land in dispute. The Court below found in favor of the plaintiff’s claim of title; and from the judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial the defendants appeal.

It is contended on their behalf, (1) that the judgment upon [525]which the execution was issued is void, because the Court in which it was rendered had no jurisdiction; (2) that the constable’s deed did not transfer to the plaintiff their title, because the land was, at the date of the execution, levy, and sale, the homestead of the defendants, and not subject to forced sale.

1. The execution was issued on the judgment of a Justice’s Court rendered on the 21st of June, 1879. He who asserts a right under such a judgment must show affirmatively that the Court in which it was rendered had jurisdiction; being a court of inferior jurisdiction, no presumptions are indulgeable in its favor. The judgment under consideration was rendered in an action of which the Justice’s Court had exclusive jurisdiction, and it had acquired jurisdiction of the persons of the defendants. But the point made against the judgment is, that there was no cause of action stated in the complaint in the action upon which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction.

In the complaint, it was, in substance, alleged, “ that at various times between the 18th day of April and the 12th day of October, 1878, at the town of San Bernardino, the defendant Anna McCoy purchased merchandise of the mercantile firm of L. Aucker & Co., of the value and for which she agreed to pay the sum of $242.29, on delivery to her ”; that the said merchandise was delivered to her, “ at various times between the 12th day of October and the 18th day of September, 1878 ”; that in March, 1879, the claim had been assigned to the plaintiff ; and that after the delivery of the merchandise, the defendant Anna had intermarried with her codefendant, and judgment was asked against both for the sum of $242.29 and costs.

Because the complaint does not contain an averment that the merchandise was sold and delivered at the request of the defendants, or either of them, or that they, or either of them, were indebted to the plaintiff therefor, it is contended that the Court had no jurisdiction of the action. We think, however, that the complaint contained a sufficient statement of facts to constitute a cause of action in a Justice’s Court. In those courts, a pleading is not required to be in any particular form. (§ 851, Code Civ. Proc.) It is sufficient if it shows the value of the claim asserted by the plaintiff against the defendant in such a way as that a person of common understanding may