Ex Parte Fil Ki (1889) · DecisionDepot

Ex Parte Fil Ki

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

California Supreme Court Jul 3, 1889 No. No. 20547Published

Before: Sharpstein

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defect in a complaint regarding the naming of the court does not render an injunction void for lack of jurisdiction if the defect does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.

Issues

Whether a complaint's failure to correctly name the court in its title renders a subsequent injunction void for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether a defect in a pleading that does not affect substantial rights of the parties can be disregarded in a contempt proceeding.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The defect relied on in this case could not in any conceivable way “affect the substantial rights of. the parties.””

Synopsis

Pleading — Misnomer oi* Court — Injunction — Contempt — Jurisdiction — Irregularity —■ Habeas Corpus. — No mere irregularity or omission in a complaint, not going to the jurisdiction of the court, can be inquired into on habeas corpus. A misnomer in entitling the name of the court upon the face of the complaint, while the cover of the complaint, the summons, and a writ of injunction disobeyed by the defendants contain the true name of the court, is a defect not affecting a substantial right of the defendant, and he cannot be relieved on habeas corpus from punishment for contempt in disobeying the injunction upon the ground of such misnomer.

Sharpstein, J. —The persons in whose behalf this writ was sued out were .convicted, in the superior court [585]of Yuba County, of a contempt of said court in disobeying and violating a temporary injunction issued out of said court in an action in which the county of Yuba was plaintiff and said Fil Ki et al. were defendants.

The complaint in that action was entitled, “In the .Supreme Court of the County of Yuba, State of California.” The wrapper or outside cover had. upon it the title, “ In the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the Cou,nty of Yuba.” The summons and temporary injunction were entitled, “In the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Yuba.” The complaint was filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court of said county of Yuba.

The contention of the petitioners is, that no such action as that in which said injunction purports to have been issued was pending in the superior court of said county at the time said injunction issued; that a complaint must contain, among other things, the name of ¿he court and county in which the action is brought, and that the complaint in this case does not contain the name of any court. That the complaint is defective in that respect is apparent. Is it a fatal defect ?

Civil actions in the courts of this state are commenced by filing a complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 405.)

The complaint must contain:—

“1. The title of the action, the name of the court and county in which the action was brought, and the names of the parties to the action.

“ 2. A statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.

“ 3. A demand of the relief which the plaintiff claims. If the recovery of money or damages be demanded, the amount thereof must be stated.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 426.)

If, in order to constitute a complaint, it is necessary to strictly comply with each and every of these requirements, then the paper filed in this case was not a com[586]

Ex Parte Fil Ki

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief