In a justice's court, plaintiff creditor obtained two judgments against defendant debtor. Upon a trial de novo, the County Court of Santa Clara (California) rendered a judgment against the debtor for a specific sum of money representing the debt in question, plus interest and costs. After his motion to arrest the judgment was denied, the debtor sought further review.

Break News Russia & Ukraine: Ukraine NATO

The creditor's second action sought to enforce a judgment he had obtained against the debtor. Both the justice's court and the county court determined that the creditor was entitled to a recovery on the underlying judgment. The debtor appealed further. The court held that the creditor's complaint was not so radically defective as to vitiate the judgment. Pleadings in justices' courts had to be construed with great liberality. If the facts stated were sufficient to show the nature of the claim or defense relied upon, then nothing further was required. Because it was unnecessary for the pleadings to be written, a reversal of the judgment was not authorized unless the defects complained of were calculated to mislead the adverse party, that is, the debtor here. Moreover, given an action upon a judgment, there was no foundation for the debtor's objection to the jurisdiction of the justice's court. A judgment was a contract, and by § 67 of the California Act concerning Courts of Justice and Judicial Officers, justices' courts were invested with jurisdiction of actions upon all contracts for the recovery of money, where the amount in dispute did not exceed the constitutional limits. The court affirmed the judgment.