Fairbanks

Fairbanks v. Lampkin

Caution
1893 Cal. LEXIS 685·99 Cal. 429·34 P. 101
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 31, 1893No. 15130California536 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is an appeal from an order made after final judgment taxing' a cost bill, the whole amount of the bill being only $171.20.

We do not think that this court has jurisdiction of the appeal, for the reason that the amount involved is less than $300. We strongly intimated this conclusion in SellieJc v. Be Carlow, 95 Cal. 644 ; and further consideration satisfies us that the intimations given in the opinion in that case should be taken as a correct statement of the law on the subject.

Section 47, article VI. of the state constitution, provides that: “The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction in all cases .... at law .... in which the demand, exclusive of interest .... amounts to $300 ”; and no doubt the rule has been too firmly settled to be now disturbed, that on an appeal from a final judgment in an action to recover money, jurisdiction depends upon the “demand” made by plaintiff—upon the ad damnum clause of the complaint. But that rule should not be extended further than previous decisions necessarily carry it. An order made after final judgment is a separate independent proceeding; and where it involves money only, and the amount involved is less than $300, this…

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.