California Supreme Court, 1854

Douglas8 v. Pacific Mail Steamship Co.

California Supreme Court · Decided October 15, 1854 · Heydeneeldt, Murray, Wells

4 Cal. 304

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Forbes v. Cameron Petroleums, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)
Graphic Packaging Corporation v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2015)
Indian Hills Holdings, LLC v. Frye (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2020)
C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)
In re Marriage of Smith (Cal. Ct. App. 1982)
People v. Hacker Emporium, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)
Farmers & Merchants National Bank v. Superior Court (Cal. 1945)
Hogan v. Greenfield (Wyo. 1942)
People v. Waitches (Ill. App. Ct. 1937)
McKendrick v. Western Zinc Mining Co. (Cal. 1913)
Johnson v. Goodyear Mining Co. (Cal. 1899)
Billings v. Tile State (Ind. 1886)
Thornburgh v. Savage Min. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada 1867)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Mr. Ch. J. Murray

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt and Mr. J. Wells concurred.

There are two errors assigned by the-, appellant in this ' cause, which are both well taken.

The first is the order of the Court below, admitting the *306respondents to appear specially, for the purpose of moving to set aside the default, and to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

[306] * It is clear that a party ought not to be allowed the benefit of any proceeding, unless he also assumes the responsibility of it. His appearance for one purpose, is a good appearance to the action.

The second is, that the Court erred in restricting the operation of the 80th section of the “Act Defining the Manner of Commencing Civil Actions,” to natural persons.

The word “person,” in its legal signification, is a generic term, and was intended to include artificial as well as natural persons.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.