Southern Pacific Railroad v. Superior Court

McKinstry, J.: Jurisdiction of the person of a sole defendant, in a Justice’s Court, is obtained by service of the summons and copy of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 405, 416, 849.) Section 410 provides, that a copy of the complaint must be served with the summons, and that the summons must be returned, with a certificate or affidavit of its service and of the service of a copy-complaint. The legal service of summons (which gives jurisdiction of the person of defendant) includes, as a necessary part of such service, service of the complaint. The Justice, therefore, did not have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in the action of Wells v. The Southern Pacific Railroad Company.

The Justice’s Court did -not secure jurisdiction to proceed against the defendant by reason of its special appearance for the purpose of moving to set aside the service. But a rendition of a judgment against the plaintiff did not follow, as a necessary consequence, from the order granting the motion to set aside the service. The plaintiff might, perhaps, have applied for an alias summons. Whether the Justice, under the circumstances, erred in entering judgment—the same being [474]entered for the reason that plaintiff failed or refused to prosecute his action, or for any other reason—was a question which the Superior Court had power to pass upon on appeal. Nor did a judgment against plaintiff necessarily follow from the order of the Justice denying plaintiff’s motion for a default. If the judgment entered in the Justice's Court was erroneous, the Superior Court had power to reverse it, on the appeal of the party against whom the judgment went, or to affirm it.

We think the Superior Court was authorized to hear the appeal although “no statement of the case” was filed. Section 975 of the Code of Civil Procedure relates to “ statements” containing “ the grounds on which the party intends to rely upon the appeal, and so much of the evidence as may be necessary to explain the grounds;” cases in which a statement of evidence is necessary to point the exceptions of the appellant. Where the alleged errors appear in the copy of the Justice’s docket, or in the copies of papers, sent up by the Justice as required by Sections 975, 977, there can be no necessity for, and the statute does not require, a statement; which, in such cases, could only recite what appears in the record. If, therefore, the Superior Court had reversed the judgment of the Justice’s Court, we would have refused this writ, whether we agree with the former Court or not. So if the Superior Court had affirmed the judgment of the Justice’s Court, not because such judgment would have been right, but because the Superior Court had jurisdiction to reverse or affirm it.