California Courts of Appeal, 1920

Vance v. Superior Court

California Courts of Appeal · Decided June 26, 1920 · THE COURT. —

291 P. 945; 48 Cal. App. 327; 1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 342

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Schuler-Knox Co. v. Smith (Cal. Ct. App. 1943)
Morte v. Justice's Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
Van Horn v. Justice's Court (Cal. 1932)
Gulick v. Justice's Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
Firpo v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1926)
Bogmuda v. Young (Cal. Ct. App. 1922)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The petition is denied. [1] By his general appearance in the justice's and superior court petitioner waived his right to raise the question of jurisdiction.Holbrook v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 589, [39 P. 936], does not aid him. That case was decided when section 890, subdivision 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly provided that the objection that the action was brought in the wrong county might be made at the trial. In 1905 [Stats. 1905, p. 44], the section was amended, and subdivision 4 thereof now merely provides that the action may be dismissed "when the action is brought in the wrong county, township or city." Since the amendment, the subject of dismissal of such actions has been considered by the supreme court, and it has been uniformly held that objection to the jurisdiction of the person must be made by special appearance for that purpose; otherwise it is waived. (Olcese v. Justice's Court, 156 Cal. 82, [103 P. 317]; American Law Book Co. v. Superior Court,164 Cal. 327, [128 P. 921].) *Page 328

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.