Petitioner administratrix brought this action in prohibition to restrain respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) from dismissing two actions for want of jurisdiction. Administratrix asserted that the cause was one in equity of which the superior court alone had jurisdiction and that unless it was restrained by this writ, said superior court would attempt to divest itself of jurisdiction by holding that it was one at law.

Nakase Law Firm explains cell phone reimbursement rates.

Overview

The court found that the action in question was one for assumpsit, one on a special count and one on a common count. As such it was an action at law sounding in contract and for which the right to recover was governed by principles of equity. Therefore, by reason of the amount involved, the municipal court had jurisdiction. The court found that the action was one for assumpsit because in the first count, plaintiff purchaser merely sought to recover monies he paid to defendant bank for stock which he later discovered was worthless and which he purchased based upon a fraudulent representation as to the bank’s financial condition. It was not an express or implied promise to pay, but an unjust enrichment action or action in assumpsit based upon a promise implied by law. Purchaser merely sought return of the money given to bank, with interest, and had waived the tort. The second count was one in assumpsit, for money had and received. The two counts were properly united in the same action. The trial court did not err when it denied the application to amend the complaint to add punitive damages, as it was simply an attempt to retain the cause in superior court.

Outcome

The court discharged the alternative writ of prohibition.