Myers v. Sierra Valley Stock & Agricultural Association

10 Citing cases

  1. Sunset Milling Grain Co. v. Anderson

    39 Cal.2d 773 (Cal. 1952)   Cited 35 times
    Stating that the appellant's “attempted distinction [between the terms representative and agent] is without merit because, for all general purposes, the designations are synonymous” and “may be used interchangeably”

    The situation is substantially identical to that existing where the agent has signed the name of his principal to the document. Myers v. Sierra Valley etc. Assn., 122 Cal. 669, 675 [55 P. 689], upon which Sunset Milling relies, is distinguishable from the present situation because the instrument there being considered did not purport to have been made by the corporation. For that reason, the court said, an admission of its genuineness and due execution was not an admission that it was the corporation's note. Also distinguishable is Benedict v. Wilson, 10 Cal.App. 719, 723 [ 103 P. 350], cited by Sunset Milling.

  2. Emery v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co.

    8 Cal.2d 663 (Cal. 1937)   Cited 50 times
    In Emery v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 8 Cal.2d 663 [ 67 P.2d 1046], plaintiffs recovered judgment against one James Bronis for injuries received when the automobile in which they were riding was struck by an automobile being driven and owned by Bronis.

    ( Colla v. Carmichael U-Drive Autos,Inc., supra; Winrod v. Wolters, 141 Cal. 399 [ 74 P. 1037]; Miller v. Carlisle, 127 Cal. 327 [ 59 P. 785].) It is likewise held that where a single plaintiff has properly joinable causes of action against several defendants, the claim against each being for an amount within the jurisdiction of the lower court, action must be brought in said lower court, notwithstanding the total amount sued for is within the jurisdiction of the superior court. ( Heavilin v. WestchesterFire Ins. Co., 12 Cal.App.2d 695 [ 56 P.2d 252]; Myers v. Sierra Valley etc. Assn., 122 Cal. 669, 672 [55 P. 689].) But where a single plaintiff has several small claims against a defendant, it is the total sum sued for which is the test of jurisdiction, and this is the rule notwithstanding some of the claims have been assigned to plaintiff for collection only.

  3. Hammell v. Superior Court

    217 Cal. 5 (Cal. 1932)   Cited 27 times

    It is without application to a suit where several complainants, acting individually and not jointly, are seeking to enforce their respective claims against a single defendant, each claim being less than the jurisdictional minimum ( Winrod v. Wolters, 141 Cal. 399, 402, 403 [ 74 P. 1037]; Colla v. Carmichael U-Drive Autos, Inc., 111 Cal.App. (Supp.) 784 [294 P. 378]), or to a case where a single plaintiff is seeking to enforce separate demands against several defendants, the amount demanded of each defendant being under the jurisdictional minimum ( Myers v. Sierra Valley etc. Assn., 122 Cal. 669 [ 55 P. 689]). The complaint here involved indicates that the plaintiff is seeking from each defendant an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the respondent Superior Court.

  4. Frost v. Mighetto

    22 Cal.App.2d 612 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)   Cited 14 times

    It is without application to a suit where several complainants, acting individually and not jointly, are seeking to enforce their respective claims against a single defendant, each claim being less than the jurisdictional minimum ( Winrod v. Wolters, 141 Cal. 399, 402, 403 [ 74 P. 1037]; Colla v. Carmichael U-Drive Autos, Inc., 111 Cal.App. (Supp.) 784 [294 P. 378]), or to a case where a single plaintiff is seeking to enforce separate demands against several defendants, the amount demanded of each defendant being under the jurisdictional minimum ( Myers v. Sierra Valley etc. Assn., 122 Cal. 669 [55 P. 689]). The complaint here involved indicates that the plaintiff is seeking from each defendant an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the respondent Superior Court.

  5. Heavilin v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co.

    12 Cal.App.2d 695 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)   Cited 2 times

    ( Thomas v. Anderson, 58 Cal. 99; Winrod v. Wolters, 141 Cal. 399 [ 74 P. 1037]; Colla v. Carmichael U-Drive Autos, Inc., 111 Cal.App. (Supp.) 784 [294 P. 378]; Derby v. Stevens, 64 Cal. 287 [30 P. 820]; Hyman v. Coleman, 82 Cal. 650 [23 P. 62, 16 Am. St. Rep. 178]; Myers v. Sierra etc. Assn., 122 Cal. 669 [55 P. 689]; Miller v. Carlisle, 127 Cal. 327 [ 59 P. 785]; Johnson v. Hinkel, 29 Cal.App. 78 [ 154 P. 487].)

  6. Johnson v. Hinkel

    29 Cal.App. 78 (Cal. Ct. App. 1915)   Cited 10 times
    In Johnson v. Hinkel, 29 Cal.App. 78 [ 154 P. 487], plaintiff leased land to defendant for oil drilling, the lease providing that in the event the land proved nonproductive and was abandoned by the lessee, he would not remove the casings from any well.

    Then, too, the validity or invalidity of the proclamation is not a matter that could be litigated in this proceeding. As to the defendants Katharine Brennan and E. H. Pauson, the prayer for damages against each of them is for less than three hundred dollars, and it is conceded that under the authority of Myers v. Sierra Valley etc. Assn., 122 Cal. 669, [55 P. 689], the superior court had no jurisdiction as to them, and a dismissal of the case as far as they are concerned is consented to. For the reasons given the judgment and order are reversed, with directions to dismiss the action as to Katharine Brennan and E. H. Pauson.

  7. Bradley v. Bush

    11 Cal.App. 287 (Cal. Ct. App. 1909)

    So, also, may want of consideration be shown, when pleaded as was done here, even though due execution and genuineness of an instrument be not denied. ( Brook v. Johnson, 122 Cal. 569, [55 P. 423]; Myers v. Sierra Valley etc. Assn., 122 Cal. 669, [55 P. 689].) We find no errors of law among those further pointed out which seem to call for notice.

  8. Winrod v. Wolters

    141 Cal. 399 (Cal. 1903)   Cited 9 times

    (1 Jones on Liens, sec. 94; Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. 165.) The judgment rendered was void for want of jurisdiction, and is no judgment. (Myers v. Sierra Valleyetc. Assn., 122 Cal. 669; People v. Green, 74 Cal. 405; Freeman on Judgments, sec. 117.) The execution was therefore void, and was properly quashed.

  9. O'Connor v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.

    122 Cal. 681 (Cal. 1898)   Cited 10 times

              GAROUTTE, Judge          This is an action instituted by O'Connor in the superior court of Los [55 P. 689] Angeles county to restrain the defendant from constructing its railroad on White avenue, a public street of the city of Pomona. The plaintiff O'Connor is the owner of real property abutting on White avenue, and is the owner of the fee to the center line of the street.

  10. Sunset Milling & Grain Co. v. Anderson

    242 P.2d 941 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)

    Benedict v. Wilson, 10 Cal.App. 719, 103 P. 350. Since the writing does not on its face purport to have been made by plaintiff, an admission that it was genuine and duly executed does not bar plaintiff from showing that it was not authorized by the plaintiff corporation and was without consideration. Myers v. Sierra Valley, Etc., Ass'n, 122 Cal. 669, 675, 55 P. 689. Judgment reversed.