Kelliher v. Kelliher
| Decision Date | 19 December 1950 |
| Citation | 101 Cal.App.2d 226,225 P.2d 554 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | KELLIHER v. KELLIHER (two cases.) 3 Civ. 7679, 7696. |
Lafayette J. Smallpage, Harold J. Willis, Stockton, for appellant.
Forrest E. Macomber, Stockton, for respondent.
Upon petition of both parties, and because the appeal was heard originally before only two members of the court, a rehearing was granted and the cause set for reargument. After further consideration the court is convinced that the conclusion reached in our previous opinion properly disposes of the issues raised herein, and for that reason we adopt the opinion heretofore rendered except as modified herein:
The present controversy had its inception in an unlawful detainer action filed in the Justice's Court of O'Neal Township, San Joaquin County, by plaintiff, the divorced husband of the defendant.
By his complaint plaintiff alleged that on July 9, 1947, the defendant was the owner and occupant of certain described real property; that on said date she conveyed all of her right, title and interest in the said property to Raymond E. Kelliher [a son of plaintiff and defendant] who agreed to permit the defendant to remain in possession as a 'tenant in sufferance' without the payment of rent; that on April 13, 1948, Raymond E. Kelliher and his wife conveyed the property to the plaintiff; that on June 2, 1948, the plaintiff served the defendant with a three day notice to surrender possession of the premises; that defendant refused to comply with said demand and that the monthly value of the rents and profits of the premises was the sum of $100.00. The complaint prayed for restitution of the premises and damages for the rents and profits of the premises. Defendant's general and special demurrer was over-ruled, whereupon she answered denying that she had conveyed all of her right, title and interest in the property to Raymond E. Kelliher, that he agreed to permit her to remain in possession as a tenant in sufferance without the payment of rent or that he was the owner of the property or entitled to the possession thereof and alleged that the monthly rental value of the rents and profits were in excess of $100.00. The remaining allegations of the complaint were admitted. In addition to the foregoing denials and admissions the answer alleged as an affirmative defense that on July 9, 1947, the defendant conveyed her interest in the property to Raymond E. Kelliher for the sole and specific purpose of enabling him to borrow funds by mortgaging the premises; that he allegedly agreed to re-convey the property immediately after the execution of the mortgage but that he breached the agreement by conveying the property on April 13, 1948 to the plaintiff herein, who allegedly had notice of the agreement and that plaintiff gave no consideration therefor.
The case was tried in the Justice's Court and resulted in plaintiff obtaining a judgment for the possession of the property, damages, and costs. Said court immediately thereafter issued a writ of restitution under which the defendant was evicted from the premises. Defendant then filed her notice of appeal from said judgment to the Superior Court in San Joaquin County specifying therein that the appeal was taken on questions of both law and fact. Following the setting in the Superior Court, but prior to the determination on the merits, the defendant moved for a hearing on the question as whether or not on the facts the Justice's Court had jurisdiction to try the case in the first instance and whether or not the Superior Court had jurisdiction to try the case do novo. The motion was based upon the ground that the jurisdiction of the Justice's Court was limited by section 112 of the Code of Civil Procedure to actions wherein the rental value of the property is $100.00 per month or less and that while the complaint alleged that the rental value was $100.00 per month or less the defendant's answer denied the allegation. Said motion in addition stated that if the court should decide that the Justice's Court lacked jurisdiction defendant would move that the case be dismissed upon the ground that the lack of jurisdiction precluded said court from trying the case on the merits, that the judgment of the Justice's Court be vacated and set aside and that a writ of restitution issue to restore defendant to possession.
At the conclusion of the hearing on the aforesaid motion the Superior Court reversed the judgment of the Justice's Court and directed the Clerk of the Superior Court to remit the papers and documents in connection with the appeal to the Justice's Court. The order further directed the Justice's Court to suspend all proceedings in connection with the case and to transfer the case to the Superior Court together with all papers, documents, etc. in connection therewith, which was done.
The Superior Court thereafter granted permission to defendant to file an amended answer and cross-complaint and defendant did so. He amended answer in general contained the same admissions and denials as the previous answer, except that it alleged defendant's eviction from the premises under the writ of restitution issued by the Justice's Court, and as additional affirmative defenses alleged that the plaintiff failed to comply with Section 209 of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended by the Housing the Rent Act of 1948, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1899, and that a tenancy at will rather than a tenancy in sufferance was created by the parties which had not been terminated by the three day notice.
Prior to the trial in the Superior Court upon the issues raised by the complaint and amended answer, the plaintiff moved said court for a summary judgment on the grounds that there was no defense to said action and there was no issue of fact involved. Defendant's affidavit in opposition thereto alleged that there were various issues of fact. The matter came on for a hearing before the court and at the conclusion thereof judgment was entered for plaintiff decreeing that he was entitled to the possession of the property plus damage and costs.
Defendant's first contention on appeal is based upon the proposition that since the Justice's Court had no jurisdiction the Superior Court on an appeal on questions of both law and fact was likewise without jurisdiction and therefore the latter court had no alternative but to dismiss the action.
In so contending defendant fails to distinguish the hearing on her appeal in the Superior Court and the subsequent hearing which was an original proceeding in that court. In other words, while the jurisdiction of the Superior Court on appeal from the Justice's Court was properly raised on appeal in the Superior Court the rule contended for by defendant has no applicability to the present proceeding since it is an appeal from an original proceeding in the Superior Court. As stated in Redlands High School Dist. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 348, 125 P.2d 490, 492: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Callahan v. Chatsworth Park, Inc.
...section * * *.' (Emphasis added.) To the same effect are Coyne v. Krempels, 36 Cal.2d 257, 261, 223 P.2d 244; Kelliher v. Kelliher, 101 Cal.App.2d 226, 231-232, 225 P.2d 554, and Desny v. Wilder, 46 Cal.2d 715, 725-726, 299 P.2d 257. Under the rule of those cases, there must first be a suff......
-
Rincon v. Burbank Unified School Dist.
...(Weichman v. Vetri (1950) 100 C.A.2d 177, 179, 223 P.2d 288 [not sufficiently particular, too many conclusions]; Kelliher v. Kelliher (1950) 101 C.A.2d 226, 231, 225 P.2d 554 [since plaintiff's affidavit insufficient, no need to consider defects in defendant's counteraffidavits]; Eagle Oil ......
-
Southern Pac. Co. v. Fish
...deemed by the judge hearing the motion sufficient to present a triable issue of fact.'' To the same effect are Kelliher v. Kelliher, 101 Cal.App.2d 226, 231-232, 225 P.2d 554, and Desny v. Wilder, 46 Cal.2d 715, 725-726, 299 P.2d 257. Thus, there first must be a sufficiently supportive affi......
-
Jack v. Wood
...Cal.App.2d 141, 147, 26 Cal.Rptr. 562; Pappas v. Union Bond & Trust Co., 186 Cal.App.2d 699, 702, 9 Cal.Rptr. 218; Kelliher v. Kelliher, 101 Cal.App.2d 226, 232, 225 P.2d 554; cf. Weichman v. Vetri, supra, 100 Cal.App.2d 177, 179, 223 P.2d 288.) The court may not consider the allegations of......