California Supreme Court, 1882

Nickerson v. California Raisin Co.

California Supreme Court · Decided August 22, 1882 · Ross

61 Cal. 268; 1882 Cal. LEXIS 594

Cases that cite this one

24 later published cases cite this decision.

Anderson v. No-Doz (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)
Martínez v. Sánchez (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1924)
Martínez v. Sánchez (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1924)
Bithorn v. Ball (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1911)
Wells v. Wells (Cal. Ct. App. 1946)
Beard v. Beard (Cal. 1940)
Pingree v. Reynolds (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)
Greenamyer v. Board of Lugo Elementary School District (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
Roberts v. Roberts (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
Carter v. Broder (Cal. Ct. App. 1920)
Hart v. Forgeus (Cal. 1920)
Martin v. Superior Court (Cal. 1917)
Slater v. Selover (Cal. Ct. App. 1914)
Westover v. Bridgford (Cal. Ct. App. 1914)
Phillips v. Logan (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)
Phillips v. Logan (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)
Fajardo v. Tió (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1911)
Fajardo v. Tió (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1911)
Jensen v. Dorr (Cal. Ct. App. 1908)
Cooper-Power v. Hanlon (Cal. Ct. App. 1908)
Rey v. Barclay (Cal. 1891)
Morgan v. McDonald (Cal. 1886)
People ex rel. State Bd. of Harbor Comm'rs v. Larue (Cal. 1884)
Buell v. Dodge (Cal. 1883)

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

Ross, J.:

To have justified the Court below in setting aside the default, an affidavit of merits on the part of the defendant was essential. Such affidavit must show that the defendant has fully and fairly stated the facts of the case to his counsel, before the advice of the latter could amount to a prima facie showing of merits on defendant’s behalf. It is obvious that a statement, such as is found in the affidavit in the present case, that, defendant has fully and fairly stated the said defendant’s defense in this action” to his counsel, does not answer *269the requirement. It might be that the defense relied on was a purely technical one, that did not touch the merits of the controversy. The expression used in the affidavit is not the equivalent of a statement that the defendant had fully and fairly stated to his counsel all the facts in the case.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Thoenton, Shabpstein, and McKinstry, JJ., concurred.

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