Morgan v. Somervell

California Court of Appeal

Morgan v. Somervell

65 P.2d 820, 19 Cal. App. 2d 434, 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 452

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 5, 1937

DocketCiv. 11265

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 65 P.2d 820 (Morgan v. Somervell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morgan v. Somervell, 65 P.2d 820, 19 Cal. App. 2d 434, 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 452 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

WOOD, J.

Plaintiffs’ complaint is based upon a promissory note executed and delivered by appellant to plaintiffs’ assignor. The promissory note was originally secured by a deed of trust on real property which was subject to a first mortgage. The first mortgage was foreclosed, the property sold and the time for redemption elapsed. The security for the note which is the subject of the present action became entirely valueless before the commencement of the action. The note was for the sum of $4,150, but before the commencement of the action only $1780.68 remained unpaid. Plaintiffs asked judgment for the last-mentioned sum and interest. Judgment was rendered in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.

Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “Municipal court shall have original jurisdiction of civil eases and proceedings as follows: (a) In all cases at law in *435 which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to two thousand dollars or less, ...” The present action is a “case at law”. The superior court was without jurisdiction to enter the judgment from which appeal is taken. (Williams Co. v. Superior Court, 97 Cal. App. 422 [275 Pac. 838].)

The judgment is reversed.

McComb, J., pro tern., and Grail, P. J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WOOD, J.

Plaintiffs’ complaint is based upon a promissory note executed and delivered by appellant to plaintiffs’ assignor. The promissory note was originally secured by a deed of trust on real property which was subject to a first mortgage. The first mortgage was foreclosed, the property sold and the time for redemption elapsed. The security for the note which is the subject of the present action became entirely valueless before the commencement of the action. The note was for the sum of $4,150, but before the commencement of the action only $1780.68 remained unpaid. Plaintiffs asked judgment for the last-mentioned sum and interest. Judgment was rendered in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.

Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “Municipal court shall have original jurisdiction of civil eases and proceedings as follows: (a) In all cases at law in *435 which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to two thousand dollars or less, ...” The present action is a “case at law”. The superior court was without jurisdiction to enter the judgment from which appeal is taken. (Williams Co. v. Superior Court, 97 Cal. App. 422 [275 Pac. 838].)

The judgment is reversed.

McComb, J., pro tern., and Grail, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 P.2d 820, 19 Cal. App. 2d 434, 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-somervell-calctapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack