Cardwell v. Sabichi

Thornton, J.: There is but one question of importance in this case. It concerns a judgment rendered by the Justice’s Court of Los Angeles Township, county of same name, in the action of Perry et al. v. Louis Wolfskill. Plaintiff claims under this judgment, and defendants contend that it is void for a want of jurisdiction of the party defendant, for the reason that there was no service of summons and complaint on him, as required by law. As evidence of such service, the plaintiff in the Court below offered the following return, which was indorsed on the summons:

“ I hereby certify that I have served the within summons by delivering a copy thereof, together with true copy of complaint, personally, at the Township and County of Los Angeles, this twenty-fifth day of April, 1879.

“Fee, $2. W. Bettis, Constable.

“By J. H. Morthcraet, Deputy.”

The above was objected to by defendants when the papers, including the judgment in the case of Perry et al. v. Wolfskill, were offered by plaintiff, on the ground that it did not prove service on Wolfskill. The Court overruled the objection, and defendants excepted.

It is true, that Justices’ Courts are inferior Courts of lira[493]ited jurisdiction, and their jurisdiction must affirmatively appear, or their judgments will be absolutely void. (Lowe v. Alexander, 15 Cal. 301, 302; Rowley v. Howard, 23 id. 404.) Ho intendments can be indulged in favor of the jurisdiction of such Courts. (Lowe v. Alexander, ut supra. See Peacock v. Bell, 1 Saund. 74; Brittain v. Kinnaird, 1 B. & B. 432; Dempster v. Purnell, 3 Man. & G. 375; 1 Smith’s Lead. Cas., notes to Crepps v. Dunden, [816]-818, etc.; Broom’s Leg. Maxims, [413], 914.) But within those rules which are well settled and fixed in our jurisprudence, we think the service is proved by the above return. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 849, 411, 415; Pol. C., §§ 4315, 4176.)