From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaloutsis v. Maltos

Supreme Court of California
Aug 24, 1937
9 Cal.2d 493 (Cal. 1937)

Opinion

Docket No. Sac. 4816.

August 24, 1937.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Stanley Murray, Judge. Reversed with directions.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Edward T. Taylor for Appellants.

No appearance for Respondents.


This is an action to enjoin a proceeding pending between the parties in the justice's court.

Plaintiffs Kaloutsis and Papulis were engaged with defendant Maltos in a joint venture, raising and marketing vegetables. A dispute having arisen between them, Maltos commenced an action against Kaloutsis and Papulis, in the justice's court, attaching equipment of the joint venture. Thereafter, Kaloutsis and Papulis, as plaintiffs, commenced this action against Maltos in the superior court, seeking relief with respect to the same controversy, in the sum of $649.94, which amount was beyond the jurisdiction of the justice's court; and also praying that the first action, in the justice's court, be restrained pending determination of the superior court proceeding. The lower court issued a temporary restraining order, but thereafter denied the application for an injunction. Plaintiffs appealed.

[1] Respondents have filed no brief, and no oral argument was made. The matter was argued orally in the lower court, and there is nothing in the record to show why the relief sought for was denied. Under these circumstances, appellants are entitled to a reversal, for the rule is well settled that where a defendant in a justice's court action has a claim against the plaintiff arising out of the same transaction, but in excess of the jurisdiction of the court, he may bring a suit in the superior court, and then enjoin the justice's court action, in order that the entire controversy may be settled in the court which has jurisdiction over the larger claim. ( Gregory v. Diggs, 113 Cal. 196 [45 P. 261]; Engleman v. Superior Court, 105 Cal.App. 754 [ 288 P. 723]; Kane v. Mendenhall, 5 Cal.2d 749, 756 [ 56 P.2d 498].)

The judgment is reversed with directions to the trial court to grant the injunction as prayed for.

Edmonds, J., Curtis, J., Seawell, J., and Nourse, J., pro tem., concurred.


Summaries of

Kaloutsis v. Maltos

Supreme Court of California
Aug 24, 1937
9 Cal.2d 493 (Cal. 1937)
Case details for

Kaloutsis v. Maltos

Case Details

Full title:PETER KALOUTSIS et al., Appellants, v. S. MALTOS et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Aug 24, 1937

Citations

9 Cal.2d 493 (Cal. 1937)
71 P.2d 68

Citing Cases

Curl v. Pacific Home

The extent of the relief, if any, to which she will be finally entitled can only be determined at the time of…

Home Finance Co. v. Balcom

It is the opinion of the court that the preliminary injunction was properly granted insofar as it restrains,…