Case ID: cal_68/html/0490-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Myrick, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 11078.
    Department Two.
    January 29, 1886.]
    GEORGE A. CULBERTSON, Respondent v. P. KINEVAN, Appellant.
    Justices’ Court — Penalty eor Collecting Excessive Toll'1- - Action to Recover — Jurisdiction. —A Justices’ Court has no jurisdiction to try an action brought to recover a penalty for collecting an allege^ excessive toll, where the question at issue is whether the amount cob ’cted was a legal toll.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior CourtL of Santa Barbara County. s
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. 6
    
      Charles Remold, and William Matthews, for Appellant
    
      W. C. Stratton, for Respondent. '
   Myrick, J.

— This action was commenced in a Justices’ Court to recover a penalty for collecting $1.50 for toll, which was alleged in the complaint to be more toll than the defendant was authorized to collect. The answer averred that the amount collected was a legal toll, and demanded that the case be transferred to the Superior Court. The justice refused the transfer, tried the case, and rendered judgment for plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the Superior Court, where the case was again tried, and judgment rendered for plaintiff. ,

The pleading presented the question of the legality of a toll. The Justices’ Court had no jurisdiction to try and determine that question. (Canst., art. 6, sec. 5.) It may be remarked that the sole question presented on each of the trials was, whether the amount collected was a legal toll; there was no question as to an excessive collection, if the right to collect any toll existed.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Morrison, C. J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.