Opinion
Rehearing Denied March 8, 1930
Hearing Granted by Supreme Court April 7, 1930
Appeal from Superior Court, Los Angeles County; Michael J. Roche, Judge.
Action by the D.Q. Service Corporation against the Securities Loan & Discount Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Appeal dismissed.
COUNSEL
Pacht, Pelton & Warne and William W. Leavitt, all of Los Angeles, for appellant.
Henry G. Bodkin, of Los Angeles, for respondent.
OPINION
ELLIOT CRAIG, Justice pro tem.
This action was commenced in the superior court of Los Angeles county for the recovery of the sum of $430.10 as damages for an alleged conversion of two truck tires. Judgment was in favor of defendant. On November 26, 1926, plaintiff appealed to this court from that judgment. The record shows that the cause of action arose, if at all, within Los Angeles county.
The present jurisdiction of this court to pass upon said pending appeal has not been questioned in this case; nevertheless, this court must take cognizance of its own jurisdiction.
An action of this kind is now within the original jurisdiction of the municipal court. Sections 11 and 13, art. 6, Const. of Cal.; Deering’s Gen.Laws, Consol.Supp.1925-27, p. 1607, and chapter 477, St.1929, p. 837.
An action of this kind is not now within the original jurisdiction of the superior court of Los Angeles county (being a county wherein municipal courts exist). Citations, supra, re municipal courts; section 5, art. 6, Const.; Code Civ.Proc. § 76; Berg v. Traeger, 285 P. 332, decision filed in this court this day. It follows that there is now no right of appeal from the superior court judgment. Berg v. Traeger, supra.
A study of the Constitution and statutes discloses that no saving clause has been provided under either Constitution or statutes for a continuance of jurisdiction over a pending appeal in this kind of an action.
The power of this court to pass upon an appeal heretofore duly perfected but not yet decided is fully discussed in Berg v. Traeger, supra. "A statutory right to have cases reviewed on appeal may be taken away, by a repeal of the statute, even as to causes which had been previously appealed." Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations (8th Ed.) p. 794.
By reason of the foregoing and upon the authority of Berg v. Traeger, supra, we conclude that this court is now without jurisdiction in this case.
The appeal to this court is dismissed.
We concur: CONREY, P.J.; HOUSER, J.