Cook v. Superior Court, San Mateo County

• Decision Date: 08 July 1969
• Citation: 274 Cal.App.2d 675,79 Cal.Rptr. 285
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Herbert L. COOK, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Respondent; Erma J. STEWART, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 26731.

Page 285

79 Cal.Rptr. 285

274 Cal.App.2d 675

Herbert L. COOK, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Respondent Erma J. STEWART, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 26731.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

July 8, 1969.

Sheldon I. Balman, San Francisco, for petitioner.

ELKINGTON, Associate Justice.

Erma J. Stewart, the real party in interest in these proceedings, commenced a small claims action against Charles Schiveley, doing business as Mayer-Licht, and Herbert Cook, the petitioner here. She alleged that the defendants were indebted to her in the sum of $250; that she had demanded payment of said sum; and that defendants refused to pay the same and no part thereof had been paid. Judgment that plaintiff recover $225 from defendant Schiveley and take nothing from defendant Cook was thereafter entered. Defendant Schiveley appealed from the judgment. On a trial De novo in the superior court, judgment was ordered that the plaintiff recover $200 from defendant Cook and take nothing from defendant Schiveley.

On petition of defendant Cook we granted certiorari for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the superior court to enter judgment against a prevailing codefendant in the small claims court when no appeal had been taken (or could be taken (see Code Civ.Proc, § 117j)) by the plaintiff from the portion of the judgment affecting such defendant. The issue appears to be of first instance and it resolution is not readily apparent.

A consideration of the policy implicit in the Small Claims Court Act (Code Civ.Proc. §§ 117--117r) seems profitable. Section 117h states that 'No formal pleading, other than the said claim and notice, shall be necessary and the hearing and disposition of all such actions shall be informal, with the sole object of dispensing speedy justice between the parties. * * *'

Referring to small claims proceedings the court in Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Small Claims Court, 76 Cal.App.2d 379, 383, 173 P.2d 38, 40, 167 A.L.R. 820, stated: 'Justice should not be a rich man's luxury. The Magna Carta guaranteed that justice would not be denied or delayed. Ever since 1215 those interested in the administration of justice have struggled somewhat unsuccessfully to live up to that promise so far as the poor litigant is concerned. The delay and expense incident to litigation have long discouraged the attempts of the poor litigant to secure redress for claims meritorious but small in amount. These cases are relatively of as great importance to those litigants as those heard in our highest courts, but the expense of employing an attorney and paying normal court costs is more than the cause will bear. The solution to this problem arrived at not only by many states in the United States, but also in England and in many continental countries, has been to create small claims or conciliation courts where small claims may be prosecuted informally and without the cost, delay, or procedural difficulties incident to normal litigation. * * *' Such policy, the court said, 'has received the well-nigh universal approval of the public, the bar and the judiciary.'

Sanderson v. Niemann, 17 Cal.2d 563, 573, 110 P.2d 1025, 1030, elaborates as follows: 'It is apparent that such a court was established in order to offer a means of obtaining speedy settlement of claims of small amounts. The theory behind its organization is that only by escaping from the complexity and delay of the normal course of litigation could anything be gained in a legal proceeding which may involve a small sum. Consequently, the small claims court functions informally and expeditiously. The chief characteristics of its proceedings are that there are no attorneys, no pleadings and no legal rules of evidence; there are no juries, and no formal findings are made on the issues presented. At the hearings the presentation of evidence may be sharply curtailed, and the proceedings are often terminated in a short space of time. The awards--although made in accordance with substantive law--are often based on the application of common sense; and the spirit of compromise and conciliation attends the proceedings. (Citations.)'

A small claims court plaintiff, taking advantage of the speedy, inexpensive procedures and other benefits of that court, accepts all of its attending disadvantages such as the denial of the right to an attorney or to an appeal. Passing upon the special status of such a plaintiff the court in Superior Wheeler Cake Corp. v. Superior Court, 203 Cal. 384, 387, 264 P. 488, 489, declared: 'Thus it will be seen that a quick and inexpensive method...