Taylor

This is an action at law on a promissory note to recover the sum of $1,000 as principal, $100 as attorney fees, which are provided for in the note, and interest. The complaint was filed June 6, 1928. At that time the municipal court in which it was brought had no jurisdiction of actions at law where the demand, exclusive of interest, exceeded $1,000. (Sec. 29, Municipal Court Act, Stats. 1925, *Supp 783 p. 658.) The attorney’s fees in such a case are special damages and must be regarded as a part of plaintiff’s demand to determine the jurisdiction. (De Jarnett v. Marquez, 127 Cal. 558 [ 78 Am. St. Rep. 90 , 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 157, and note, 60 Pac. 45 ].) Hence, at the time the action was begun the municipal court had no jurisdiction of it. Before the case was tried the Municipal Court Act was amended by increasing the jurisdictional limit of actions at law brought in the municipal court to $2,000 (Stats. 1929, p. 837), so that the demand of the complaint and the judgment rendered, which was for $1100 and interest, were at the time of trial within the jurisdiction of that court. This amending act contained nothing indicating an intention that its provisions should apply to…

I dissent. The conclusion reached in the foregoing opinion is in accordance with that reached in a majority of our sister states. To me, however, it seems out of step with modern judicial thought, to be contrary to the dictates of justice, and to be, not only not required by the decisions of our own state, but out of harmony with their latest expressions. Because I am unable to give a rational answer to the query propounded in Larkin v. Saffarans (cited in the majority opinion), “Why shouldn’t the amendment give the court jurisdiction?” and because there is no authority in this state making necessary an irrational answer, I conclude that the amendment giving the municipal court jurisdiction of an action for $1100, gave it jurisdiction of this action for that amount.

If we take the viewpoint, once to be expected, that a case filed in a court without jurisdiction is a mere nothingness, *Supp 788 a void, then we will find it difficult to embrace the idea that there was anything pending that could be affected. But if we see in the filing of papers a means to an end, that end the presenting of a case to a court for an adjudication, then, I submit, it is hard to see any reason why the…