Slike strani

of probate; of divorce and for annulment of marriage, and of all such special cases and proceedings as are not otherwise provided for. And said court shall have the power of naturalization, and to issue papers therefor. They shall have appellate jurisdiction in such cases arising in justices' and other inferior courts in their respective counties as may be prescribed by law. They shall be always open (legal holidays and non-judicial days excepted), and their process shall extend to all parts of the state; provided, that all actions for the recovery of the possession of, quieting the title to, or for the enforcement of lieus upon real estate, shall be commenced in the county in which the real estate, or any part thereof affected by such action or actions, is situated. Said courts and their judges, shall have power to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, on petition by or on behalf of any person in actual custody in their respective counties. Injunctions and writs of prohibition may be issued and served on legal holidays and non-judicial days.

The jurisdiction of the Superior Court of proceedings in insolvency is not divested by Bank Commissioner's act of March 30, 1878, (Stats. p. 740) or amendments thereto, (Stats. 1887-8, p. 90) and said acts are not unconstitutional. How far the acts of the commissioners may be controlled or reviewed is not decided. People v. Superior Court, 100 Cal. 105.

An action to determine plaintiff's right to waters of a spring on defendant's land and to maintain pipes for conducting said waters, is an action to quiet title to realty, and jurisdiction of said action is in the Superior Court of the county in which the land is situated. Pacific Yacht Club v. Sausalito B. W. Co., 98 Cal. 487-following Fritts v. Camp, 94 Cal. 394.

In an action to enjoin defendants from dumping mining debris into a creek above plaintiff's premises, defendant by his answer justifying under an adverse claim of easement, the trial must be had in the county where plaintiff's land is situate. The action is in effect, one to quiet plaintiff's title against defendant's claim of easement. Fritts v. Camp, supra.

In the phrase "tax, impost, assessment, toll," etc., the word assessment does not include assessments

made by private corporations under section 331 C. C., but refers to such as are authorized for purposes of revenue and taxation by municipal or other pub lic corporations. Arroya D. & W. Co. v. Superior Court, 92 Cal. 47.

Where in a contract for sale of land a deposit or part payment is made, the sale depending upon the question whether the title proves good, and deposit to be repaid if title is not good, the jurisdiction to try an action to recover such deposit is in the Superior and not in the justices' court, even though the amount is less than three hundred dolllars, as it involves a question of title to land. (Schroeder v. Witram, 66 Cal. 636, criticised.) Copertini v. Opperman, 76 Cal. 181.

In an action to recover one hundred dollars paid by plaintiff under an agreement that defendants would locate plaintiff on vacant government land, the pleadings and record in the justices' court did not sufficiently show that the title or right of possession would necessarily be involved. Held, if such question became involved, the justice had no jurisdiction to try it, and should have certified the case to the Superior Court. Defendant appealed to the Superior Court on questions of law and fact, and in the Superior Court the question did become involved by reason of evidence of occupancy by a third person, and the Superior Court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the particular issue raised, and the Superior Court having acquired original jurisdiction, an appeal would lie to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction in all cases at law which involve the title or possession of real estate under section 4, article VI of the constitution without excepting cases where the title is only incidentally involved. If the title or possession is so involved that it must be decided in order to determine the case, the Superior Court has original and the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction whether the involution may be said to be merely incidental or not. (Copertini v. Opperman, supra, and Holman

v. Taylor, 31 Cal. 341). Hart v. Carnall-Hopkins Co., opinion filed June 16, 1894.

Jurisdiction in equitable action for specific performance of contract to convey land is in Superior Court. Hall v. Rice, 64 Cal. 443.

That Superior Court has not jurisdiction on appeal to try the case unless the justices' court had original jurisdiction. See Ballerino v. Bigelow, 90 Cal. 500.

Section 1664, C. C. P., proceedings in the nature of an action to determine heirship. Not unconstitutional. The Superior Court is properly given jurisdiction. Such proceedings clearly relate to "probate." In re Burton, 93 Cal, 459.

Jurisdiction in cases of unlawful detainer cannot be given to justice's courts by mere allegations in the complaint. The jurisdiction is in the Superior Court unless in fact the rental value does not exceed twenty-five dollars per month, and unless the damages claimed do not exceed two hundred dollars. Ballerino v. Bigelow, 90 Cal. 500.

The Superior Courts are successors of the former county courts. Smith v. Hill, 89 Cal. 122, 128.

The jurisdiction of the Superior Court as to the amount of three hundred dollars is to be determined by reference to the ad damnum clause of the complaint. Where the demand was for $362.84, the value of wheat, and $100.00 expended in pursuit of the property, the demand exceeded $300.00, and Superior Court had jurisdiction. Greenbaum v. Martinez, 86 Cal. 459. (Citing Dashiel v. Slingerland, 60 Cal. 653; Bailey v. Sloan, 65 Cal. 387, and Lord v. Goldberg, 81 Cal. 599.)

The section is cited to effect that suit to foreclose a mortgage must be brought in the county where the land is situate, in Campbell v. West, 86 Cal. 197, and as to all liens, in Goldtree v. McAlister, 86 Cal. 93105. And as to jurisdiction over corporation, in Nat. Bank v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. 491; Chase v. R. R. Co., 83 Cal. 468-473; Baker v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 73 Cal. 183.

Superior Courts are given jurisdiction, in the broadest terms, of actions in equity. Water Works

v. San Francisco, 82 Cal. 286-305. As to actions relating to office, and in nature of quo warranto, in People v. Stanford, 77 Cal. 361. (Department opinion, p. 376.)

Complaint in justice's court for conversion, alleged the value of the property at two hundred and fifty dollars and alleged damages in the further sum of fifty dollars, the prayer being for two hundred and ninety-nine dollars. Demurrer to jurisdiction overruled, judgment for plaintiff according to prayer. Defendant appealed to Superior Court and renewed his demurrer. Overruled. Defendant then applied to Supreme Court to prohibit the Superior Court from proceeding with trial of the case. Held, the aa damnum clause of complaint, or the value of the property, determined jurisdiction in favor of justices' court, and whether it had or not, the Superior Court had jurisdiction on appeal to try the case. Sanborn v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. 425. (Contra, Ballerino v. Bigelow, 90 Cal. 500.)

A native of China is not entitled to naturalization, nor can such person, naturalized and admitted to practice as an attorney at law in the highest court of another state, be admitted to practice in the courts of this state. In re Hong Yen Chang, 84 Cal. 163.

An action to oust from office a person claiming to be a supervisor of San Francisco, and to recover the five thousand dollar penalty affixed by statute in such cases, is in the nature of quo warranto, and it is an action at law involving more than three hundred dollars, and the constitution gives the Superior Court jurisdiction, which is not affected by the provision of the consolidation act, making the supervisors judges of the election, etc., of their members. People v. Bingham, 82 Cal. 238.

The jurisdiction of Superior Courts in all such special cases as are "not otherwise provided for," includes cases of eminent domain on behalf of cities and towns. Bishop v. Superior Court, 87 Cal. 226.

Special proceedings under the act supplemental to the Wright Act, (Stats. 1889, p. 212) providing for confirmation of organization of irrigation districts

are proceedings in rem, and jurisdiction may be acquired by publication. Crall v. Board of Directors, 87 Cal. 684.

The misdemeanor of gaming being "provided for," (Sec. 330 Penal Code) the Superior Court has no jurisdiction to try the accused on an indictment or information for that offense. (Citing Green v. Superior Court, 78 Cal. 556; and see also People v. Joselyn, 80 Cal. 544; Ex parte Wallingford, 60 Cal. 103; Gafford v. Bush, 60 Cal. 149.) People v. Lawrence, 82 Cal. 182.

The Superior Court in San Francisco has no jurisdiction of misdemeanor of conspiracy. Such jurisdiction being vested in the police court, is otherwise provided for. The common law distinction between high and low misdemeanors has never been recognized in this state, and the legislature has power to vest exclusive jurisdiction over all misdemeanors in inferior courts. Green v. Superior Court, 78 Cal. 556.

A penalty "given by statute" and not exceeding $300, is within the jurisdiction of justices' courts whether its legality be questioned or not, it not being a tax, impost, assessment, toll or municipal fine. Thomas v. Justices' Court, 80 Cal. 40.

The constitution, in using the words "Superior Court," is dealing, not with individual Superior Courts as separate and distinct courts and as county establishments, but with a state system of courts. That term is a collective term. Green v. Superior Court, 78 Cal. 560.

A case appealed from justices' court to Superior Court of the same county cannot be transferred to another county for trial on the ground that defendant is a resident of the latter county. Gross v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. 382.

Section 980 of Code of Civil Procedure purporting to authorize such transfer is unconstitutional. Luco . Superior Court, 71 Cal. 555.

These courts shall be always open (legal holidays and non-judicial days excepted) and terms of court are abolished and the legislative enactments are in

« PrejšnjaNaprej »