Case ID: cal_8/html/0076-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Murray, C. J., after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, J., concurring.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FEILLETT v. ENGLER.
    Judgment, by consent or confession, for over two hundred dollars, in a Justice’s Court, is void. Consent of parties cannot give jurisdiction which the Constitution denies.
    Appeal from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, County of Placer.
    
      This was an action of ejectment. The defendant admits all the substantial allegations of the complaint, but claims title by virtue of a purchase at a constable’s sale, upon execution issued by a justice of the peace, against the plaintiff, for the sum of three hundred and eighteen dollars. The docket of the justice shows that suit was originally commenced for the sum of two hundred dollars, but that the present plaintiff, then defendant, appeared and confessed judgment for three hundred dollars, whereupon judgment was duly entered for three hundred dollars, and eighteen dollars costs.
    The Court below rendered judgment for defendant, and the plaintiff, Feillett, appealed.
    
      Chas. A. Tuttle for Appellant.
    
      James Anderson for Respondent.
   Murray, C. J., after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, J., concurring.

We have repeatedly decided, that justices of the peace cannot entertain suits for money demands, where the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred dollars. Consent of parties cannot give a jurisdiction which the Constitution denies. It makes no difference whether the judgment was suffered voluntarily or not. It was for all purposes absolutely void, and the execution and sale under it a nullity.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.