Vance v. Superior Court

291 P. 945, 48 Cal. App. 327, 1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 342
California Court of Appeal·Decided June 26, 1920·No. Civ. No. 3384.·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

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 P. 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 P. 317]; American Law Book Co. v. Superior Court,164 Cal. 327, [128 P. 921].) *Page 328

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

Vance v. Superior Court, 291 P. 945, 48 Cal. App. 327, 1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 342 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920).

291 P. 945 (Vance v. Superior Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schuler-Knox Co. v. Smith
144 P.2d 47 (California Court of Appeal, 1943)
Morte v. Justice's Court
34 P.2d 748 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Van Horn v. Justice's Court
13 P.2d 704 (California Supreme Court, 1932)
Gulick v. Justice's Court
281 P. 1031 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Firpo v. Superior Court
246 P. 165 (California Court of Appeal, 1926)
Bogmuda v. Young
207 P. 915 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)