Williams v. Mecartney
Before: Searls
Synopsis
Justice’s Court—Action fob Fine, Penalty, ob Forfeiture—Jurisdiction—Legality of Assessment — Pleadings.—A Justice’s Court has jurisdiction of an action to recover a sum of money less in amount than three hundred dollars for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture given by statute or ordinance of a municipal corporation; provided no question of the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, toll, or municipal fine is raised. If any such question is raised, it must be by answer, verified by the oath of the defendant, and unless so raised, no evidence as to such legality can be received, either in the Justice’s Court, or on appeal in the Superior Court.
Id. —Appeal to Supreme Court. —In such an action, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of an appeal from the Superior Court, if no question as to such legality is raised by the answer.
Searls, C. This is an appeal from a final judgment entered in the Superior Court in and for the city and county of San Francisco, in favor of plaintiff for $123.50 and costs.
A motion is made to dismiss, upon the ground that the amount of the judgment being for less than three .hundred dollars, and no jurisdictional question having been made by the pleadings, the appeal does not lie.
[557]The suit was brought in the Justice’s Court to recover $123.50, on account of a contract by plaintiff with the superintendent of streets in and for the city and county of San Francisco, under which contract plaintiff paved the southerly half of the roadway and constructed granite curbs for the sidewalk, all in front of the property of the defendant, on Post Street, in the city and county of San Francisco.
The complaint sets out facts showing the defective condition of the street, a service of notice by the superintendent of streets upon defendant, requiring him to make necessary repairs; his neglect and refusal to make such repairs; the adoption of a resolution of the board of supervisors, directing the superintendent of streets to contract for the repairs, etc.
The answer denies the allegations of the complaint, and is not verified.
Plaintiff had judgment in the Justice’s Court, from which an appeal was taken upon both the law and facts, and after a trial de novo, in the Superior Court, judgment was again rendered in favor of plaintiff, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
Written findings were waived, and the case is presented on the judgment roll.
By the fourth subdivision of section 112 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction is conferred upon Justice’s Courts to recover fines, penalties, or forfeitures not amounting to three hundred dollars,” given by statute or the ordinance of an incorporated city and county, city, or town, where no issue is raised by the answer involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, toll, or municipal fine.”
By the third subdivision of section 76 of the same code, original jurisdiction is expressly conferred upon the Superior Courts, —“In all cases at law which involve the title or possesssion of real property, or the legality of [558]
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)