Aiken v. Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Co.
Aiken v. Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Co.
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.