McKeen v. Naughton
Before: Haven
Synopsis
Appeal prom Justice’s Court — Undertaking — Jurisdiction — Void Judgment. — The failure to file an undertaking on appeal from a justice’s court within thirty days from the rendition of the judgment renders the appeal ineffectual for any purpose, and the judgment of the appellate court rendered without such undertaking is void.
Id.—Jurisdiction of Municipal Court of Appeals — Sale under Void Judgment.—The judgment of the former municipal court of appeals of the city and county of San Francisco, to which an appeal had been transferred from the county court, upon which no bond had been filed within thirty days, is without jurisdiction and void; and a sale of land under execution issued upon such judgment confers no title.
Id.—Motion to Dismiss Void Appeal — Want op Jurisdiction — Estoppel op Appellant— Quieting Title. — The action of the appellant in resisting a motion to dismiss the appeal in the municipal court of appeals does not estop him from asserting want of jurisdiction in that court, or from assailing the invalidity of the judgment, in an action brought to quiet title to the land purchased at an execution sale thereunder.
Estoppel in Pais — Pleading. — The party claiming an estoppel in pais, and relying upon it as a defense, should set out the matters constituting it in his answer.
Id. •— Representation op Fact •— Statement op Law. — A representation, in order to work an estoppel, must generally be a statement of fact, and the statement of a proposition of law will not conclude the party making it from denying its correctness, unless it is understood to mean nothing but a simple statement of fact.
De Haven, J. Action to determine conflicting claims to certain real property.
The appellant claims title to the land in controversy by virtue of a purchase thereof at a sale under an execution issued upon a judgment of the municipal court of appeals of San Francisco in favor of one Harry Pateman, against Robert McKeen and W. H. Norton, for the sum $277.70, including costs.
The action of Pateman v. McKeen and Norton was commenced in the court of a justice of the peace for the city and county of San Francisco, and judgment therein rendered on May 8, 1879, in favor of the plaintiff therein,, and against the defendants in that action.
[465]On June 6, 1879, the defendants therein served and filed a notice of appeal from said judgment to the county court of said city and county, but no undertaking thereon was filed until June 9, 1879.
The case was tried in the municipal court of appeals on September 24, 1879, and on that day said court rendered the judgment under which the appellant claims. No order was made by the county court transferring the case to the municipal court of appeals until after the latter court had given its judgment. But on November 11, 1879, such order of transfer was made, and which also directed that the same be filed nunc pro tunc as of June 14, 1879.
It is claimed by respondent that this judgment was void for want of jurisdiction, and that therefore no* title passed under the execution sale mentioned, and this is the principal question for decision here.
1. It is unnecessary to determine whether it was competent for the legislature, under the constitution then in force, to transfer to the municipal court of appeals a portion of the jurisdiction conferred by that constitution upon the county court, as it is clear that the municipal court of appeals never acquired any jurisdiction of the case of Pateman v. McKeen and Norton, for other reasons. There was no attempt to take an appeal to the municipal court of appeals, and the attempted appeal to the county court was ineffectual. If it be assumed that the undertaking given upon such attempted appeal was sufficient in amount, still the county court acquired no jurisdiction of the action, as the undertaking was not filed within thirty days after the rendition of the judgment in the justice’s court. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 974, 978; Coker v. Superior Court, 58 Cal. 177.)
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)