Heinlen v. Phillips
Before: Sharpstein
Synopsis
Appeal — Jurisdiction — Certiorari — Annulling Order of Justice’s Court. — The supreme court has jurisdiction of an appeal from an order of the superior court, made on certiorari, annulling an order of a justice’s court.
Id. — Case Overruled. — The decision in the case of Bienenfeld v. Fresno Milling Go., 82 Cal. 425, is overruled.
Id.—Amount in Controversy — Jurisdiction — Adequate Remedy.— The jurisdiction of the supreme court on appeal from a judgment rendered in a case of certiorari does not depend upon the amount in controversy; hut the only question the appellate court looks into is to ascertain whether the inferior tribunal, board, or officer had jurisdiction, and if not, whether there is any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
Justice Court — Jurisdiction — Setting aside Judgment.—A justice of the peace has no power to set aside a judgment rendered after a regular trial.
Id. — Time for Rendition of Judgment — Directory Statute. — Section 892 of the Code of Civil Procedure, providing that “when the trial is by the court judgment must be rendered at the close of the trial,” is merely directory, and a judgment is not void because not rendered until six weeks after the submission of the case.
Sharpstein, J. This is an appeal from an order of the superior court, made on certiorari, annulling an order of a justice of the peace, by which a judgment previously rendered was set aside.
The cause appears to have been submitted in the superior court upon the return made to the wu'it. At any rate, there is nothing in the record before us to show that the return was controverted, and for the purpose of [558]the present appeal it must be taken to be true. The material facts shown by the petition and the return are as follows:—
John Heinlen, the appellant here, brought an action in the justice’s court of J. B. Runyon, of Mussel Slough township, Tulare County, against the respondent, P. 0. Phillips, to recover the sum of $150 for services rendered. An answer was put in, and a trial was had before another justice, who was called in by Justice Runyon to sit in his place. Both the parties were represented at such trial, and witnesses were sworn and examined. The case was submitted on December 16th, and on the 29th of the following January judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, for sixty dollars and costs. On the 20th of the following March, the plaintiff moved the court to set aside this judgment. The motion was heard by Justice Runyon, and was granted. The defendant then moved to have the order granting such motion set aside, but failing in this, obtained a writ of certiorari from the superior court, which, after a hearing, annulled the order vacating the judgment. The appeal is from this order of the superior court.
1. A motion is made to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that since the amount involved is less than three hundred dollars this court is without jurisdiction. And the case of Bienenfeld v. Fresno Milling Co., 82 Cal. 425, decided by Department Two of this court, sustains the position. But that case is in conflict with the prior decisions, which in the pressure of business were overlooked, and we think it is best to return to the settled rule. The point was decided in Winter v. Fitzpatrick, 35 Cal. 269, which overruled a prior case. The opinion was delivered by Sanderson, J., who said: “The jurisdiction of this court in proceedings of this character does not depend upon the amount in controversy. Our review does not embrace the merits of the action. We look into the case no further than may be necessary to [559]
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)