gno.law

Culver v. Superior Court of Alameda Cty.

California Supreme Court · S. F. No. 9722. · 1921-02-17 · Published · 195 P. 1055 · 185 Cal. 144 · 1921 Cal. LEXIS 530

LAURA CULVER, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY Et Al., Respondents

Proceeding
writ
Trial court
Superior Court of Alameda County
Trial judge
James G. Quinn
Outcome
affirmed — Order affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
The Court (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is a proceeding in certiorari, and it is sought therein to annul the order of the superior court - affirming on appeal thereto a judgment of a justice’s court.

*145 In so far as the superior court is concerned, the material questions herein involved are the same in all respects as those involved in Roberts v. Police Court and Superior Court, ante, p. 65, [195 Pac. 1053]. (See in addition to cases cited in opinion therein, Valentine v. Police Court, 141 Cal. 615, [75 Pac. 336];

American Law Book Co.

v. Superior Court, 164 Cal. 327, [128 Pac. 921].)

[1]

It is immaterial in this proceeding whether or not the complaint in the justice’s court stated facts sufficient to show the commission of a public offense. If it did not state such facts, the superior court erred in affirming the judgment, but that was mere error in the exercise of its lawful jurisdiction. If for any reason the judgment of the justice’s court is void for want of jurisdiction, the superior court nevertheless had jurisdiction to affirm it. Whether or not such judgment can be attacked in some other proceeding, such as habeas corpus, for instance, is altogether immaterial here. The superior court did not exceed its jurisdiction in affirming such judgment. It follows that the order assailed must be affirmed.

The order of the superior court is affirmed.

Angellotti, C. J., Shaw, J., Wilbur, J., Sloane, J., Lennon, J., Lawlor, J., and Olney, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

All the Justices concurred, except Olney, J., who voted for rehearing.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by