Sutherland v. Sweem

California Supreme Court

Sutherland v. Sweem

53 Cal. 48

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1878

DocketNo. 5495

StatusPublished

This text of 53 Cal. 48 (Sutherland v. Sweem) 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

Sutherland v. Sweem, 53 Cal. 48 (Cal. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court :

The Court below erred in admitting in evidence, against the plaintiff’s objection, the record of the proceedings in the Justice’s Court. In Young v. Wright, 52 Cal. 407, we held that so ■much of the Act of February 4th, 1874, (Stats. 1873-4, p. 50) as attempts to confer upon Justices’ Courts jurisdiction in the class of cases provided for in that act, is unconstitutional and void. The proceedings in the Justice’s Court were therefore null and void, and were not admissible in evidence for any purpose.

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

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

By the Court :

The Court below erred in admitting in evidence, against the plaintiff’s objection, the record of the proceedings in the Justice’s Court. In Young v. Wright, 52 Cal. 407, we held that so ■much of the Act of February 4th, 1874, (Stats. 1873-4, p. 50) as attempts to confer upon Justices’ Courts jurisdiction in the class of cases provided for in that act, is unconstitutional and void. The proceedings in the Justice’s Court were therefore null and void, and were not admissible in evidence for any purpose.

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Cal. 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutherland-v-sweem-cal-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack