People ex rel. Jones v. Cty. Court of El Dorado

California Supreme Court

People ex rel. Jones v. Cty. Court of El Dorado

10 Cal. 19, 1858 Cal. LEXIS 179

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1858

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 10 Cal. 19 (People ex rel. Jones v. Cty. Court of El Dorado) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Jones v. Cty. Court of El Dorado, 10 Cal. 19, 1858 Cal. LEXIS 179 (Cal. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court

Terry, C. J., and Field, J., concurring.

The Code allows a party to appeal from a judgment rendered in a Justice’s Court to the County Court, either" upon questions of law alone, or upon questions of fact alone, or upon questions both of law and fact. But this right of appeal can only be exercised in proper cases. In this case, the defendant, by his de[20]*20fault, admitted the facts alleged in the complaint. There being no issue of fact, the facts were conceded, and the justice could commit no error as to them; and as the justice could commit no error as to the facts conceded, there could be no appeal from his judgment in reference to the facts. The defendant having conceded the facts to be true as alleged, could not appeal against his own admission. There being no right of appeal in this case upon questions of fact, the defendant could not force the County Court to try the case anew by his own improper act in taking his appeal upon questions both of law and fact. Nor could the defendant ask the County Court to hear the appeal upon the questions of law, for the reason, that there was no statement of the grounds upon which he intended to rely.

Our conclusion is, that in all cases the issue of fact must be made in the Court of original jurisdiction. The County Court can only re-try the issues tried in the Court below. This is what is meant by a trial anew in the County Court, under section six hundred and twenty-six.

Let the writ be dismissed.

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

Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court

Terry, C. J., and Field, J., concurring.

The Code allows a party to appeal from a judgment rendered in a Justice’s Court to the County Court, either" upon questions of law alone, or upon questions of fact alone, or upon questions both of law and fact. But this right of appeal can only be exercised in proper cases. In this case, the defendant, by his de[20]*20fault, admitted the facts alleged in the complaint. There being no issue of fact, the facts were conceded, and the justice could commit no error as to them; and as the justice could commit no error as to the facts conceded, there could be no appeal from his judgment in reference to the facts. The defendant having conceded the facts to be true as alleged, could not appeal against his own admission. There being no right of appeal in this case upon questions of fact, the defendant could not force the County Court to try the case anew by his own improper act in taking his appeal upon questions both of law and fact. Nor could the defendant ask the County Court to hear the appeal upon the questions of law, for the reason, that there was no statement of the grounds upon which he intended to rely.

Our conclusion is, that in all cases the issue of fact must be made in the Court of original jurisdiction. The County Court can only re-try the issues tried in the Court below. This is what is meant by a trial anew in the County Court, under section six hundred and twenty-six.

Let the writ be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Cal. 19, 1858 Cal. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-jones-v-cty-court-of-el-dorado-cal-1858.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack