Vance v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Vance v. Superior Court

48 Cal. App. 327

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 26, 1920

DocketCiv. No. 3384

StatusPublished

This text of 48 Cal. App. 327 (Vance 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

Vance v. Superior Court, 48 Cal. App. 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The petition is denied. [1] By his general appearance in the justice’s and superior court petitioner waived his right to raise the question of jurisdiction. Holbrook v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 589, [39 Pac. 936], does not aid him. That case was decided when section 890, subdivision 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly provided that the objection that the action was brought in the wrong county might be made at the trial. In 1905 [Stats. 1905, p. 44], the section was amended, and subdivision 4 thereof now merely provides that the action may be dismissed “when the action is brought in the wrong county, township or city.” Since the amendment, the subject of dismissal of such actions has been considered by the supreme court, and it has been uniformly held that objection to the jurisdiction of the person must be made by special appearance for that purpose; otherwise it is waived. (Olcese v: Justice’s Court, 156 Cal. 82, [103 Pac. 317]; American Law Book Co. v. Superior Court, 164 Cal. 327, [128 Pac. 921].)

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

THE COURT.

The petition is denied. [1] By his general appearance in the justice’s and superior court petitioner waived his right to raise the question of jurisdiction. Holbrook v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 589, [39 Pac. 936], does not aid him. That case was decided when section 890, subdivision 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly provided that the objection that the action was brought in the wrong county might be made at the trial. In 1905 [Stats. 1905, p. 44], the section was amended, and subdivision 4 thereof now merely provides that the action may be dismissed “when the action is brought in the wrong county, township or city.” Since the amendment, the subject of dismissal of such actions has been considered by the supreme court, and it has been uniformly held that objection to the jurisdiction of the person must be made by special appearance for that purpose; otherwise it is waived. (Olcese v: Justice’s Court, 156 Cal. 82, [103 Pac. 317]; American Law Book Co. v. Superior Court, 164 Cal. 327, [128 Pac. 921].)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 Cal. App. 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vance-v-superior-court-calctapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack