Case Name: MOSES HOPKINS impleaded with G. P. BRONSON v. L. H. CHEESEMAN
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1865-04
Citations: 28 Cal. 180
Docket Number: 
Parties: MOSES HOPKINS impleaded with G. P. BRONSON v. L. H. CHEESEMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 180–181

Head Matter:
MOSES HOPKINS impleaded with G. P. BRONSON v. L. H. CHEESEMAN.
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court.—The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction, either on appeal or writ of error, where the amount in controversy in the Court below is less than three hundred dollars.
Writ of Error to the County Court of Solano County.
August 28th, 1863, plaintiff commenced an action against defendants in the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Solano County, to recover judgment for the sum of two hundred and sixty-eight dollars and seventy-seven cents, alleged to be due plaintiff for work and labor performed for defendants, and for money paid by plaintiff for their use. Defendant Hopkins alone answered. The answer was served and filed on the 28th day of January, 1864. The answer denied the allegations of the complaint, and raised the objection that the Court had no jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was less than three hundred dollars.
On the 16th of May, 1864, an order was made on motion of defendant, transferring the cause for trial to a Justice’s Court in Solano County. Plaintiff had judgment in the Justice’s Court, and defendant appealed to the County Court, where plaintiff recovered judgment for two hundred and sixty-eight dollars and seventy-seven -cents, and six hundred and eighty-eight dollars and twenty-five cents, costs of suit, for taking care of cattle which had been attached, when the suit was commenced. Defendant moved to retax the costs by striking out the costs for keeping attached property, because the Court had no jurisdiction to enter any judgment for such costs. The motion was denied, and defendant excepted. Defendant thereupon brought the case to the Supreme Court by writ of error, for the purpose of reversing the order refusing to strike out said costs.
W. S. Wells, for Plaintiff in error.
M. A. Wheaton, for Defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Sanderson, C. J.
The amount in controversy in this case is less than three hundred dollars, and this Court has no jurisdiction either on appeal or writ of error.
Let the writ be quashed.