McDonald v. Agnew

California Supreme Court Nov 26, 1898 No. S. F. No. 827Published

Before: Haynes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant's demurrer to a complaint constitutes a general appearance, submitting the party to the court's jurisdiction, and that prohibition is not an appropriate remedy because the defendant has an adequate remedy via appeal.

Issues

Whether a demurrer to a complaint constitutes a general appearance submitting the defendant to the court's jurisdiction.
Whether a writ of prohibition is available to a defendant who has an adequate remedy at law through the appellate process.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A special appearance may be made for the purpose of quashing the summons or proof of service, but a demurrer to the complaint, raising, as it does, an issue of law in the case to be tried by the court, is necessarily a submission to its jurisdiction”

“By demurring to the complaint the defendant appeared and submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court, and the justice did not exceed his jurisdiction in entering his default, and could regularly proceed to enter judgment thereon.”

“these cases show that he has “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law” by an appeal, and therefore prohibition will not lie.”

Synopsis

Practice—Appearance by Demurrer—Justice’s Court—Prohibition— Summons—Appeal.—A defendant by demurring to a complaint in a justice’s court, submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court, under sections 416 and 1014 of the Code of Civil Procedure, notwithstanding a recital in the demurrer to the contrary, and that his appearance is only for the purpose of demurring; and upon the overruling of such demurrer, and the entry of his default for failure to answer, cannot maintain prohibition against the further proceedings of the justice’s court, on the ground of irregularities in the service and return of the summons. Conceding that such irregularities were not waived by the demurrer, the right of the defendant to have his objections thereto reviewed on appeal, where his previous motion to quash the service has been denied, is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

HAYNES, C. The defendant, a justice of the peace, appeals from a judgment of the superior court prohibiting him from further proceeding in an action brought in his court by one Wilds against McDonald, the plaintiff in this proceeding. The appeal is from the judgment upon the judgment-roll.

‘The findings show the following facts: That summons in the action of Wilds v. McDonald was regularly issued by the justice, and “a duplicate of said summons attached to a copy of the complaint was handed to said W. W. McDonald" by the attor[449]ney for said Wilds; that neither said summons nor complaint was marked “copy,” nor was any other summons shown or read to McDonald; that McDonald’s attorney afterward demanded of the justice permission to inspect the original summons and proof of service, but this request was not complied with for the reason that the summons had not been returned, and a similar request was made of Wilds’ attorney, who replied that he would file the summons and proof of service before he moved in the action. These requests, as well as a subsequent motion to quash the summons and dismiss the action, were made before his time to answer had expired. This motion to quash was denied by the justice, and the defendant in that action again moved the court to strike the complaint from the files upon the grounds that the summons had not been returned, that the originals and not copies had been served, and that no other complaint or summons had been shown to him; and this motion was also denied. For the purposes of each of these motions McDonald appeared specially. He then filed a demurrer to the complaint, prefacing it with the following statement: “Comes now the above-named defendant, and not submitting himself to the jurisdiction of this court, nor waiving any of his rights, but appearing only for the purpose of demurring to the plaintiff’s complaint filed herein.”

This demurrer stated three grounds: 1. Want of facts; 2. Improperly joining two causes of action; and 3. For uncertainty. Defendant’s attorney declined to argue his demurrer, and it was overruled, 'and being called upon to answer declined to do so, and his default was entered, and before judgment was entered thereon McDonald procured from the superior court an alternative writ of prohibition. No return of the summons was at any time made to the justice, though it was attached to the answer of the justice in this proceeding with a sufficient affidavit of service made before the date of the default.

Upon these facts, the superior court concluded that the justice never acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and entered judgment awarding a peremptory writ of prohibition, from which the justice appeals.

McDonald v. Agnew

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief