Young

Young v. Wright

Good Law
52 Cal. 407
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1877No. 5347California1,216 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Cbockett, J.

argued that it was a proceeding in equity, and that the Justice had no jurisdiction.

William J. Graves, for the Respondents.

The demurrers to the original and supplemental answers of the defendant John Wright Jr. should have been sustained. The attempted justification for the seizure and detention of the sheep, set up as a defense in these answers, is founded on proceedings commenced and prosecuted before a Justice of the Peace, under the Act of February 4th, 1874. (Statutes 1873-4, p. 50.) The plaintiff contends that the jurisdiction attempted to be conferred by the statute in question upon Justices’ Courts in this class of cases is essentially a proceeding in equity to enforce a lien, of which the District Courts have exclusive jurisdiction under the Constitution; and we think the point is well taken. The statute authorizes the owner or occupant of land to take up and safely keep, at the expense of the owner, any animals found trespassing thereon, and requires him immediately to give, notice to the owner, if known, provided he resides within six miles of the place of taking up. At any time after receiving the notice the owner, on proof of. his ownership, and tendering the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.