Case Name: FREDERICK H. SMITH, on his own behalf and on behalf of the State of California v. THE OMNIBUS RAILROAD COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1868-10
Citations: 36 Cal. 281
Docket Number: 
Parties: FREDERICK H. SMITH, on his own behalf and on behalf of the State of California v. THE OMNIBUS RAILROAD COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 281–283

Head Matter:
FREDERICK H. SMITH, on his own behalf and on behalf of the State of California v. THE OMNIBUS RAILROAD COMPANY.
Street Railroad Company—Jurisdiction of Actions for Forfeitures against.— The District Court has no jurisdiction of an action to recover a forfeiture or penalty upon a railroad company for charging a passenger an excess of fare, as prescribed in the Act “concerning street railroads in this State/'’ (Stats. 1863, p. 296.) Reed v. The Omnibus Railroad Company, 33 Cal. 212, affirmed.
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.
This was an action against the defendant to recover thirty-one thousand four hundred dollars, being the aggregate sum of one hundred and fifty-seven forfeitures which were alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint to have been incurred by the defendant, by reason of an overcharge exacted of the plaintiff by the defendant on the purchase by him, at divers times, of one hundred and fifty-seven tickets for fares over the defendant’s street railroad in San Francisco. The defendant demurred to the complaint, on the ground, among others, that the Court had no jurisdiction of the action. The Court sustained the demurrer, and judgment final passed for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. The other facts are in all respects similar to those in Seed v. The Omnibus JRailroq,d Company, reported in 33 Cal. 212.
J. A. Fletcher, for Appellant.
E. Casserly, and W. H. L. Barnes, for Respondent.
The points and authorities presented in the briefs of counsel are essentially the same as in Beed v. Omnibus Railroad Company, 33 Cal. 212.—[Reporter.]

Opinion:
By the Court, Sanderson, J. :
This ease is not distinguishable from Reed v. The Omnibus Railroad Company, 33 Cal. 212, and Taber v. The Omnibus Railroad Company, decided at the October Term, 1867, [not reported,] and upon the authority of those cases the judgment must be affirmed.
So ordered.