Doll v. Feller

Citations

• 16 Cal. 432

Syllabus

<p>Demubbeb to the jurisdiction of a Court of general jurisdiction lies only where the want of jurisdiction appears affirmatively on the face of the complaint. Otherwise, of Courts of limited and special jurisdiction; there, every fact essential to confer jurisdiction must be alleged.</p> <p>In Courts of general jurisdiction, the cause of action only need be stated, and the want of jurisdiction, arising from insufficient value of the premises sued for, must be taken advantage of in some other way.</p> <p>A complaint in ejectment describing the premises as “lot No. 1 in block No. 23 as per plot of the town of Bed Bluff, as laid out by the Bed Bluff Land Corporation in 1853, being on the corner of Main and Sycamore streets, twenty-five feet on Main by one hundred and fifteen feet on Sycamore, and running back to the alley,” and specifying the county in which they are situated by the terms “ in said county,” referring to the designation “ county of Tehama,” in the title of the suit, sufficiently describes the premises. The description by metes and bounds is required only so far as they may be necessary to identify with certainty the property.</p> <p>In actions to recover real property, the complaint need not state the residence of either of the parties; the statute provides for the trial in certain counties, and the situation of the premises, not the residence of the parties, determines the county.</p> <p>Failure of defendant in ejectment to appear when the cause is called for trial—an • answer being in—authorizes the Court to try it without a jury.</p> <p>Where in ejectment the facts found by the Court authorized a judgment for possession but not for damages, the judgment, being for possession and damages, was affirmed in the Supreme Court, upon respondent’s remitting the damages and paying costs of appeal.</p>