Palmer v. Snyder (1885) · DecisionDepot

Palmer v. Snyder

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jun 2, 1885 No. No. 9547Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a justice of the peace in National Township had jurisdiction over the case because the action was properly transferred from a San Diego city justice at the city's request, and the court affirmed the order to audit and pay the claim.

Issues

Whether a justice of the peace outside the city of San Diego had jurisdiction over the case under the city's re-incorporation act.
Whether the court erred in ordering the board of trustees to audit and allow the plaintiff's claim.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We think the latter justice had jurisdiction.”

“There is nothing in the act referred to to show that sections 833 and 836 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to this case, as to change of place of trial.”

“We find nothing in the act which shows error in the order that the defendants, the board of trustees, audit and allow plaintiff’s claim and issue warrant therefor.”

Synopsis

San Diego—Violation of City Obdinance—Action to Eecoyeb Fine—Place of Tbial.—An action commenced before a justice of the city of San Diego, under section 12 of the act re-incorporating such city, to recover a fine for a violation of a city ordinance, may be transferred for trial to a justice having his office outside the city.

The Court. 1. The appellant claims , that the justice of the peace of National Township had no jurisdiction of the case, and that a judgment rendered "by any justice having his office out of the city of San Diego, in a case under section 12 of the act to re-incorporate the city of San Diego, is void. (Stats. 1875-76, p. 812.) The act does not say that a judgment shall not be recovered before any justice out of the city. The action was properly brought before a justice of the city, and at the special instance and request of the city was transferred to a [106]justice of National Township in the same county. We think the latter justice had jurisdiction. There is nothing in the act referred to to show that sections 833 and 836 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to this case, as to change of place of trial.

2. We find nothing in the act which shows error in the order that the defendants, the board of trustees, audit and allow plaintiff’s claim and issue warrant therefor.

Judgment affirmed.

Palmer v. Snyder

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief