California Supreme Court, 1882

Walsh v. Hutchings

California Supreme Court · Decided March 14, 1882 · Myrick

60 Cal. 228; 1882 Cal. LEXIS 429

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Simmons Hardware Co. v. Alturas Commercial Co. (Idaho 1895)
González v. Flores (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1921)
Thompson v. American Fruit Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
Pouchan v. Godeau (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
Credit Clearance Bureau v. Weary & Alford Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)
State ex rel. Pierson v. Millis (Mont. 1897)
McKay v. Farr (Utah 1897)
Bookwalter v. Conrad (Mont. 1894)
Perego v. Dodge (Utah 1893)
Arnold v. Sinclair (Mont. 1892)
Fitzpatrick v. Fitch (Cal. 1890)
Herrlich v. McDonald (Cal. 1889)
Somers v. Somers (Cal. 1889)
Fish v. Benson (Cal. 1886)
Peltret v. Frank (Cal. 1884)

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

Myrick, J.:

This is an appeal from an order setting aside a default judgment entered against the defendant. The action was commenced in the District Court in and for the county of Merced, and the summons was served on the defendant in the city and county of San Francisco, October 11, 1879. The default and judgment were entered by the Clerk November 26, 1879. The defendant moved to vacate the judgment and set aside the default, and for leave to answer, which motion was granted *229by the Court. Papers appear in the transcript as printed purporting to be an affidavit of the defendant, and a counter affidavit of the plaintiff; but there is no bill of exceptions, and the Judge of the Court below does not certify or identify these papers as having been used on the motion. It is true, the Clerk of the Court below certifies that the transcript " contains full, true and correct copies of all papers used on the hearing in said District Court on the motion of said defendant Hutchings to set aside said default and judgment;” but it is not for the Clerk to determine what papers or evidence the Court acted upon. Disregarding these papers, it does not appear that the Court was not justified under Section 473, C. C. P., in making the order.

Order affirmed.

McKee, Sharpstein, and Thornton, JJ., concurred.

McKinstry, J., concurred in the judgment.

Morrison, C. J., also concurred in the judgment.

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