TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Feillett v. Engler

Feillett v. Engler, 8 Cal. 76 (1857)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1857
Judges
Murray, Terry
Citations
8 Cal. 761857 Cal. LEXIS 296
Cited by 8
Syllabus
Judgment, by consent or confession, for over two hundred dollars, in a Justice’s Court, is void. Consent of parties cannot give jurisdiction which the Constitution denies.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, County of Placer. This was an action of ejectment. The defendant admits all the substantial allegations of the complaint, but claims title by virtue of a purchase at a constable’s sale, upon execution issued by a justice of the peace, against the plaintiff, for the sum of three hundred and eighteen dollars. The docket of the justice shows that suit was originally commenced for the sum of two hundred dollars, but that the present plaintiff, then defendant, appeared and confessed judgment for three hundred dollars, whereupon judgment was duly entered for three hundred dollars, and eighteen dollars costs. The Court below rendered judgment for defendant, and the plaintiff, Feillett, 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 — Murrayterry

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

Murray, C. J., after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, J., concurring.

We have repeatedly decided, that justices of the peace cannot entertain suits for money demands, where the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred dollars. Consent of parties cannot give a jurisdiction which the Constitution denies. It makes no difference whether the judgment was suffered voluntarily or not. It was for all purposes absolutely void, and the execution and sale under it a nullity.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →
1863–1864: 11881–1882: 21883–1884: 11887–1888: 11899–1900: 11929–1930: 11951–1952: 118632026peak 1881 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Vasquez v. Vasquez240 P.2d 319 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)
  2. Crislip v. Cain19 W. Va. 438 (1882)
  3. Finders v. Bodle78 N.W. 480 (Neb. 1899)
  4. Depue v. Sergent21 W. Va. 326 (1883)
  5. Bud Hoard Co. v. F. Berg & Co.1929 OK 215, 278 P. 273
  6. Cramer v. McDowell6 Colo. 369 (1882)

Most recent

  1. Vasquez v. Vasquez240 P.2d 319 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)
  2. Bud Hoard Co. v. F. Berg & Co.1929 OK 215, 278 P. 273
  3. Finders v. Bodle78 N.W. 480 (Neb. 1899)
  4. Building v. Hardie17 P. 229 (Cal. 1888)
  5. Depue v. Sergent21 W. Va. 326 (1883)
  6. Cramer v. McDowell6 Colo. 369 (1882)

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