Small v. Gwinn
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the County Court of Placer County. Action to try the right to a mining claim in a Justice’s Court. The answer of defendant avers that the value of the mining claim in dispute is $300, and that the justice has no jurisdiction to try the cause. On the trial, in the County Court, the defendant moved to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that the property in dispute was real property, which motion was overruled.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the County Court of Placer County. Action to try the right to a mining claim in a Justice’s Court. The answer of defendant avers that the value of the mining claim in dispute is $300, and that the justice has no jurisdiction to try the cause. On the trial, in the County Court, the defendant moved to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that the property in dispute was real property, which motion was overruled. Plaintiff then moved to strike from the answer the allegation that the claim in dispute was of the value of $300, which motion was sustained, the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.
Mr. Chief Justice Murray and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
In Zander v. Coe, 5 Cal. R., we decided that the Legislature could not confer on justices of the peace any jurisdiction where the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred dollars. There can be no exception to this rule, and in Van Etten et al. v. Jilson, January Term, ’56, in construing the statute giving them jurisdiction of mining claims, we expressly confine it to such as are of the value of two hundred dollars.
Their jurisdiction in forcible entry and detainer cases…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Armstrong v. MayerNebraska Supreme Court · 1900
- Herkimer v. KeelerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Cashman v. VickersMontana Supreme Court · 1924