23 P.2d 428 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1933
This cause is before us upon a petition for a writ ofcertiorari to be directed to the above-named Superior Court, for the purpose of reviewing a certain judgment entered in said court wherein one J.E. Pauly was plaintiff and A.H. Behrens, G H Commercial Service, Inc., and Fred M. Harter and Bruce Goodman were defendants. *705
It appears from the petition and return that on or about the twelfth day of May, 1932, an action was begun in the Justice's Court of Camptonville Township, County of Yuba, by J.E. Pauly against the petitioners herein. Judgment went for the plaintiff Pauly against the petitioners in the action just referred to, and upon appeal to the Superior Court of the County of Yuba, the judgment of the justice's court was affirmed.
[1] Upon this hearing it is contended that neither the justice's court nor the superior court had jurisdiction of the action by reason of the alleged failure of the complaint to state a cause of action against the petitioners herein. The complaint in the justice's court in the action referred to herein is as follows, to wit:
"In the Justice's Court of Camptonville Township, County of Yuba, State of California.
J.E. Pauly, | Plaintiff, | vs. | A.H. Behrens, G H Commercial Service, Complaint. Inc., Fred M. Harter Bruce | Goodman, | Defendants. |
"The plaintiff in the above-entitled action complains of the defendants above named, and, for cause of action, alleges:
"WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against the defendants for the sum of twenty-seven Dollars ($27.00) storage charge, interest, costs of suit, and for such other relief as may be meet, just and proper.
"J.E. PAULY, Plaintiff."
The record further shows that the petitioners in the action referred to, upon appearing, moved for a change of venue, and likewise demurred to the sufficiency of the complaint. The motion for change of venue was denied and the demurrer to the complaint was overruled. The appeal from the justice's court presented for consideration the same questions which are set forth in the petition for the writ of review.
The reading of the complaint filed in the justice's court shows that the justice's court had jurisdiction of the parties to the action, and also had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. The question involved was the amount of money that should be paid for the storage of a certain automobile, the demand being limited to the sum of $27, which, of course, was considerably below the $300 limit of the jurisdiction of the court in which the action was pending. *707
While it may be admitted that the complaint did not state a cause of action, it did set forth the subject matter of the action, to wit, the amount of money due for storage of an automobile, and also the demand made by the plaintiff, to wit, that the plaintiff should have judgment against the defendants for the sum of $27. The defendants in the action were thus advised of the cause of action and the demand of the plaintiff.[2] The law makes a distinction between a complaint which does not state a cause of action by reason of defects in the allegations therein contained, where the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, and cases where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter. If it appears from the complaint that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter, the judgment of course is void, but if the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter, its ruling upon demurrer as to the sufficiency of the complaint constitutes only error in procedure in the trial of the action and not any action wherein lack of jurisdiction is involved.
In the recent case of Associated Oil Co. v. Mullin,
To the same effect is the case of Roemer v. Nunes,
Irrespective of what courts have decided in other states upon the questions here involved, the cases which we have cited are conclusive here.
The writ is denied and the judgment affirmed.
Thompson, J., and Pullen, P.J., concurred.