BURNETT v. HOOVER BALL BEARING CO (1942)

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

BURNETT v. HOOVER BALL & BEARING CO.

Civ. 12953.

Decided: April 30, 1942

Goodspeed, McGuire, Harris & Pfaff, of Los Angeles, for appellant. James B. Salem, of Los Angeles, for respondent.

Plaintiff's two alleged causes of action were in substance as follows: First, that plaintiff was a distributor of defendant's products under a written agreement, and defendant terminated the relationship without giving plaintiff sixty days' notice as required by the agreement, to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $600 for loss of profits; and that defendant removed all of its consigned products from plaintiff's place of business and thereby damaged plaintiff in the sum of $3,500, the reasonable value of his business. Second, that defendant did not give plaintiff credit for a part of the products repossessed by defendant, to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $116.40. The prayer was for $4,216.40.

Defendant's motion to strike out plaintiff's allegations relative to the $3,500 for loss of the business was granted. Defendant denied the other allegations, and alleged a counterclaim of $305.98 for merchandise sold.

After the order was made striking out the $3,500 item, plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint claiming $195.83 as commissions, and amended the prayer by omitting the $3,500 and including the $195.83. As amended the prayer was for $913.23.

Defendant appeals from the judgment in favor of plaintiff for $750.

The order having been made striking out the claim for $3,500, and the prayer having been amended to demand $913.23, the subject matter of the action was then not within the jurisdiction of the superior court Jacobson v. Superior Court, 1936, 5 Cal.2d 170, 174, 53 P.2d 756. Since a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction of the subject matter is void Hahn v. Kelly, 1868, 34 Cal. 391, 402, 94 Am.Dec. 742; Capital Bond, etc., Co. v. Hood, 1933, 218 Cal. 729, 731, 24 P.2d 765, the judgment should be reversed even though the point is not raised by the parties.

The judgment is reversed and the superior court is directed to transfer the action to a proper court having jurisdiction of the subject matter.

PARKER WOOD, Justice.

SCHAUER, P. J., and SHINN, J., concurred.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network