TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Van Etten & Steele v. Jilson

VAN ETTEN AND STEELE v. JILSON

Van Etten & Steele v. Jilson, 6 Cal. 19 (1856)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1856
Judges
Heydenfeldt
Citations
6 Cal. 19
Syllabus
Justices of the Peace have no jurisdiction in actions to recover damages for injury to a mining claim, or for its detention. Where the complaint in an action to recover possession of a mining claim, in a Justice’s Court, contains an allegation of injury done and a prayer for damages, the latter should be disregarded or stricken out, and the plaintiff be allowed to try his right to the claim.
Summary
Appeal from the County Court of Nevada County. The plaintiffs brought their action in a Justice’s Court to recover possession of a mining claim, and for damages for injuries done thereto by defendants. The defendants answered, and on trial moved to dismiss the action, for the reason that two causes of action were improperly united. The Justice overruled the motion. The jury found a verdict for defendants, and judgment was entered accordingly, from which plaintiffs appealed to the County Court. There the motion to dismiss was renewed and granted, and the action dismissed. Plaintiffs appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Heydenfeldt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.

Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

Justices of the Peace cannot take any jurisdiction by implication. The law gives them the authority to try the right to a mining claim where the value does not exceed two hundred dollars, but it confers no jurisdiction to give damages for an injury to a mining claim, or for its detention.

But this is not the case here. The plaintiff sues for the mining claim—that is the cause of his action. His prayer for damages might have been stricken out, or might have been disregarded. It ought not to have turned him out of Court. The rule is, “ Utile per inutile non vitiatur.” And, besides this, the Courts are always gentle and indulgent to pleadings before these inferior tribunals. Order of dismissal reversed, and cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1857–1858: 11859–1860: 11863–1864: 11865–1866: 11899–1900: 118572026peak 1857 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Peninsular Trading & Fishing Co. v. Pacific Steam Whaling Co.56 P. 604 (Cal. 1899)
  2. Swain v. Chase12 Cal. 283 (1859)
  3. Wratten v. Wilson22 Cal. 465 (1863)
  4. Armstrong v. Paul1 Nev. 134 (1865) · Concurrence
  5. Freeman v. Powers7 Cal. 104 (1857)

Most recent

  1. Peninsular Trading & Fishing Co. v. Pacific Steam Whaling Co.56 P. 604 (Cal. 1899)
  2. Armstrong v. Paul1 Nev. 134 (1865) · Concurrence
  3. Wratten v. Wilson22 Cal. 465 (1863)
  4. Swain v. Chase12 Cal. 283 (1859)
  5. Freeman v. Powers7 Cal. 104 (1857)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list