Aiken v. Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Co.
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Cairo & Fulton Railroad v. Trout (Ark. 1877)
- Earl W. Schott, Inc. v. Kalar (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)
- Ravia Granite Ballast Co. v. Wilson (Okla. 1908)
- Southern Building & Loan Ass'n v. Hallum (Ark. 1894)
- O'Brien v. Shaw's Flat & Tuolomne Canal Co. (Cal. 1858)
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. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
This was an action against a corporation, by its corporate name. The sheriff's return shows that the summons was served on “ defendant, Waddell, yho was in possession of the property;” the name of Waddell is not mentioned in the complaint, and it does not appear how he became a defendant, or of what property he was in possession.
The 29th section of the Practice Act provides that “ if the suit be against a corporation, the summons shall be served on the president, secretary, cashier, or managing agent thereof.” As Waddell was not shown to be one of the officers named, the judgment by default was
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.