Stevens v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Stevens v. Superior Court

293 P. 620, 109 Cal. App. 522, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 425

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 14, 1930

DocketDocket No. 7608.

StatusPublished

This text of 293 P. 620 (Stevens v. Superior Court) 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

Stevens v. Superior Court, 293 P. 620, 109 Cal. App. 522, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 425 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

CRAIG, Acting P. J.

By a complaint consisting of several counts or causes of action, the petitioner instituted a suit in the superior court for $500 alleged to have been earned as commission while in the employment of the defendants therein named. A demurrer interposed upon the ground that said court had no jurisdiction of the action was sustained, and the plaintiff has petitioned for a writ of mcmdarmos to require the overruling of the demurrer and a trial of the issues.

The superior court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. (Scott v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. App. 764 [292 Pac. 290].) The complaint contains *523 certain allegations as to the inability of the plaintiff to ascertain the amount of business transacted by defendants, and prays an accounting, but since the amount alleged to be due the plaintiff is elsewhere stated as a definite sum the averments are not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. (Kinley v. Thelen, 158 Cal. 175 [110 Pac. 513].)

The writ is denied.

Thompson (Ira F.), J., and Archbald, J., pro tem., concurred.

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

CRAIG, Acting P. J.

By a complaint consisting of several counts or causes of action, the petitioner instituted a suit in the superior court for $500 alleged to have been earned as commission while in the employment of the defendants therein named. A demurrer interposed upon the ground that said court had no jurisdiction of the action was sustained, and the plaintiff has petitioned for a writ of mcmdarmos to require the overruling of the demurrer and a trial of the issues.

The superior court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. (Scott v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. App. 764 [292 Pac. 290].) The complaint contains *523 certain allegations as to the inability of the plaintiff to ascertain the amount of business transacted by defendants, and prays an accounting, but since the amount alleged to be due the plaintiff is elsewhere stated as a definite sum the averments are not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. (Kinley v. Thelen, 158 Cal. 175 [110 Pac. 513].)

The writ is denied.

Thompson (Ira F.), J., and Archbald, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 P. 620, 109 Cal. App. 522, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-superior-court-calctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack