Case Name: BERNARDO BIENENFELD, Appellant, v. THE FRESNO MILLING COMPANY, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1890-01-02
Citations: 82 Cal. 425
Docket Number: No. 13378
Parties: BERNARDO BIENENFELD, Appellant, v. THE FRESNO MILLING COMPANY, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 425–426

Head Matter:
[No. 13378.
Department Two.
January 2, 1890.]
BERNARDO BIENENFELD, Appellant, v. THE FRESNO MILLING COMPANY, Respondent.
Supreme Court—Appellate Jurisdiction.—Certiorari—Amount in Dispute.—The appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court does not extend to an appeal from a judgment and order of the superior court dismissing a writ of certiorari and affirming a judgment of a justice’s court which amounted to less than three hundred dollars. The appellate jurisdiction of this court is the same as if the case had been appealed to the superior court.
Id. — Dismissal op Appeal.—This court will dismiss an appeal of which it has no jurisdiction, of its own motion, whether the point is raised by counsel or not.
Appeal from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Fresno County dismissing a writ of certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Meux & Edwards, for Appellant.
T. P. Ryan, and Oliver Wolcott, in pro. per., for Respondent.

Opinion:
Sharpstein, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the superior court of Fresno County dismissing a writ of certiorari, and affirming a judgment of a justice's court in the above-entitled action.
The judgment of the justice's court is in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff for the sum of $106.65, costs incurred by defendant in said action, in which there was a verdict and judgment in his favor.
We think the appellate jurisdiction of this court does not extend to such a case. This court has "appellate jurisdiction in all cases in equity, except such as arise in justice's courts; also, in all cases at law which involve the title or possession of real estate, or the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, toll, or municipal fine, or in which the demand exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to three hundred dollars; also, in cases of forcible entry and detainer, and in proceedings in insolvency, and in actions to prevent or abate a nuisance, and in all such probate matters as may be provided by law; also, in all criminal cases prosecuted by indictment- or information in a court of record on questions of law alone." (Const., art. 6, sec. 4.)
This case does not appear to be within the appellate jurisdiction of this court, as defined by the constitution. Therefore we cannot entertain jurisdiction of it. If there had been an appeal from the justice's to the superior court, we are confident that no appeal from the judgment of the latter to this court would have been attempted.
Our appellate jurisdiction is the same in both cases.
Not-having jurisdiction of the appeal, we must dismiss it. The only embarrassment we experience in arriving at this determination is caused by the omission of respondent to raise the point. But we cannot proceed further in a case after discovering that we have no jurisdiction, whether the point is raised by counsel or not.
Appeal dismissed.
Thornton, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.