Legal Opinion
Williams v. Rosinsky Motor Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 25, 1955No. Civ. A. 8679PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBishop, Acting P. J.
We see no escape from the conclusion that the judgment, awarding the plaintiff $2,614.98 upon certain conditions, must be reversed because the trial court was without jurisdiction of the case when the judgment was made and entered.
The events leading to the situation that we deem fatal to the judgment are a bit unusual. The action as brought was one within the jurisdiction of the municipal court. Framed in three causes of action, the complaint alleged, first of all, an action to recover the payments made upon a contract (as amended by a second) induced by fraud and which plaintiff had and…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Baar v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Johnson v. PolhemusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Thomasian v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Consolidated Adjustment Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Lehnhardt v. JenningsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Turner v. EversAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1973
- Turner v. EversCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Flowers & Sons Development Corp. v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Simons v. Federal Bar Building CorporationDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
- Babcock v. AntisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.