Muller v. Reagh
| Decision Date | 15 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 17091,17091 |
| Citation | 309 P.2d 826,150 Cal.App.2d 99 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | William MULLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Charles REAGH and Leiah Muller, Defendants and Respondents. |
Wiliam Muller, Redwood City, appellant in pro. per.
Charles Reagh, San Francisco, for respondents.
Plaintiff has appealed from an order transferring the cause to the municipal court upon the ground that the superior court lacks jurisdiction.
(1) Does it appear from the complaint that the superior court lacks jurisdiction?
The following are the significant allegations of the complaint:
According to the first count, defendant Lelah Muller converted four unexecuted forms, three agreement forms and one deed form. The three agreement forms have an 'intrinsic' value of $150. The deed form has an 'intrinsic' value of $10 and an 'extrinsic' value of $13,000. Plaintiff has already been damaged to the extent of $1,000 in defendant's quiet title suit which Lelah Muller has brought against him predicated upon the use by her of said agreement forms and the deed form and that such damages will increase to an unascertained amount, which plaintiff requests permission to insert in the complaint when ascertained. Defendant Reagh has participated in the institution and maintenance of the quiet title suit to the damage of plaintiff in the sum of $13,000. By reason of the premises plaintiff has suffered bodily and mental strees and has been unable to work and by reason thereof has already been damaged in the sum of $2,000 which damages will accrue and incrase and plaintiff requests permission to insert the full amount thereof when ascertained. Plaintiff has suffered exemplary and punitive damages in the amount of $35,000. In the prayer he asks for $13,000 as general damages, $160 as special damages, $3,000 as compensatory, and $35,000 as exemplary and punitive damages.
In the second count plaintiff pleads fraud and deceit, incorporating by reference all of the allegations of the first count and alleging that Lelah obtained the deed form and the agreement forms from him by fraud and deceit. Here, he alleges that he is damaged in the sum of $13,160, the value of the unexecuted forms.
In the third count plaintiff pleads an action for claim and delivery of the four unexecuted forms. He alleges they are the value of $13,160.
Defendants support the order of transfer upon the theory that 'inspection of the complaint shows that by no stretch of the imagination could unexecuted forms be worth $13,000, no matter what the amount claimed as their value.' That is not to say that no damages, not even nominal damages, might be recoverable for the tort allegedly committed. Nor does it signify that the item of $2,000, or some portion of it, might not be recoverable for the alleged bodily and mental stress allegedly suffered by the plaintiff.
Accordingly, actual damages in some amount are potentially recoverable. This brings into play the element of punitive damages. 'In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.' Civ.Code, § 3294. It follows, of course, that punitive damages are recoverable only in case actual damages are recovered, but that does not mean that for that purpose actual damages need be more than nominal. Foster v. Keating, 120 Cal.App.2d 435, 455, 261 P.2d 529, and authorities there cited.
Plaintiff alleges he has suffered punitive damages in the amount of $35,000. He might, conceivably, recover much less than that but who can say he has not pleaded a case for an amount sufficient to meet the jurisdictional requirements of the superior court?
It appears, therefore, that the plea of punitive damages when added to the plea of actual damages (however small the later might be construed to be), brings the case within the jurisdiction of the superior court. The following significant observations were made in Schwartz v. California Claim Service, 52 Cal.App.2d 47, 56-57, 125 P.2d 883, 889:
Moreover, it appears from the settled statement on this appeal that the determination that it lacked jurisdiction was made by the superior court 'at the trial,' 1 a circumstance which pursuant to the fifth paragraph of section 396 of the Code of Civil Procedure gave that court authority to retain the cause and not transfer it to the municipal court. Wexler v. Goldstein, 146...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Superior Court
...jurisdiction (e.g., Allstate Leasing Corp. v. Smith (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 128, 130-131, 47 Cal.Rptr. 636; Muller v. Reagh (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 99, 102, 309 P.2d 826; Schwartz v. Cal. Claim Service (1942) 52 Cal.App.2d 47, 56-58, 125 P.2d 883; Harrison v. Superior Court (1935) 3 Cal.App.2d ......
-
Gold v. Los Angeles Democratic League
...the existence of such jurisdiction, a plea of punitive damages must be added to a plea of actual damages. (Muller v. Reagh, 150 Cal.App.2d 99, 102, 309 P.2d 826 (1957); Schwartz v. California Claim Service, Ltd., 52 Cal.App.2d 47, 56--57, 125 P.2d 883 (1942).)* Retired Justice of the Court ......
-
House v. Moomaw
...411; Fortenberry v. Wilkerson, 222 Miss. 70, 75 So.2d 274; Fischer v. Township of Bedminster, 5 N.J. 534, 76 A.2d 673; Muller v. Reagh, 150 Cal.App.2d 99, 309 P.2d 826. It is our conclusion that the order of the trial court denying plaintiff the right to file his supplemental petition alleg......
-
Muller v. Muller
...J., concur. 1 See Muller v. Muller, 141 Cal.App.2d 722, 297 P.2d 789; Muller v. Reagh, 148 Cal.App.2d 157, 306 P.2d 593; Muller v. Reagh, 150 Cal.App.2d 99, 309 P.2d 826; Muller v. Muller, 156 Cal.App.2d 623, 320 P.2d 205; Muller v. Reagh, 170 Cal.App.2d 151, 338 P.2d 601; Muller v. Reagh, ......