I. That the justice of the peace had jurisdiction. The plaintiffs only sought to try their right to a mining claim, and for this purpose his jurisdiction was express. (Compiled Laws, 750, Secs. 6, 7.)
In the complaint there was neither averment nor demand of value or damages. The plaintiffs only sought the restitution of the possession of their claim. The defendants, first by their motion, and afterwards by their answer, objected that the value of the claim was over two hundred dollars, and that, therefore, the justice had not jurisdiction.
We insist that in all cases where the jurisdiction depends upon amount or value, the averment and demand of amount or value in the complaint must determine. Neither the motion nor answer has anything to do with fixing the jurisdiction. (Stevens v. Pearson, 5 Vermt. R. 503; Meirees v. Despont, 2 Wash. C. C. 463; Singleton v. Madison, 1 Bibb. 342; Odell v. Cuthbert, 9 Watts & Serg. 66; Sherman v. Clark, 3 McLean, 91; Boon v. Poindexter, 12 Sm. & M. 640; Gordon v. Longest, 16 Pet. R. 97.)
The objection, if it obtained at all, would apply with equal force to actions of forcible or unlawful entries and detainers of land, and consequently it would be in the power of the defendant in all such actions to procure a dismissal of the action whenever the property is of a value exceeding two hundred dollars. Such a doctrine would almost destroy that action which has hitherto been held to lie in all cases to which it is adapted, regardless of the value of the property detained. We think that this objection is already overruled by this Court in O'Callaghan v. Booth, and Van Etten & Steel v. Jilson and others.
JUDGES: The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt. Mr. Chief Justice Murray and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
OPINION
HEYDENFELDT, Judge
In Zander v. Coe (5 Cal. 230), we decided that the Legislature could not confer on justices of the peace any jurisdiction where the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred dollars. There can be no exception to this rule, and in Van Etten v. Jilson, (ante, 19,) in construing the statute giving them jurisdiction of mining claims, we expressly confine it to such as are of the value of two hundred dollars.
Their jurisdiction in forcible entry and detainer cases arises from the nature of those cases, they being quasi criminal; and coming under the head of special cases, as that term is used in our Constitution, the Legislature has the right to dispose of the jurisdiction in those cases according to its own wisdom; and that action would be maintainable as well for a mining claim as for other land, where the circumstances would warrant it.
The objection to the jurisdiction of the justice, on the ground of excess in the value of the subject of controversy, was properly made by the answer, and that should have been first determined before he proceeded to hear the merits of the case.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.