Bailey v. Sloan
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- de la Torre v. National City Bank (1st Cir. 1937)
- Yurkas v. Zampatti (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
- Frost v. Mighetto (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)
- Hammell v. Superior Court (Cal. 1932)
- Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Conejo Oil Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1928)
- Pioneer Truck Co. v. Clark (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)
- Turner v. Municipal Council of San Juan (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1916)
- Turner v. Concejo Municipal de San Juan (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1916)
- Oppenheimer v. Regan (Mont. 1905)
- Lord v. Thomas (Cal. 1891)
- Carter v. Paige (Cal. 1889)
- National City Bank v. de la Torre (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1935)
- National City Bank of New York v. O'Neill (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1935)
- State v. Jensen (Utah 1929)
- Lehnhardt v. Jennings (Cal. 1897)
- Ventura County v. Clay (Cal. 1896)
- Henigan v. Ervin (Cal. 1895)
- Wall v. Heald (Cal. 1892)
- Greenbaum v. Martinez (Cal. 1890)
- Lord v. Goldberg (Cal. 1889)
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
The demurrer was properly overruled. The demand according to the ad damnum clause of the complaint, exclusive of interest, exceeds $300. The ad damnum clause in the complaint is the test of jurisdiction, (Maxfield v. Johnson, 30 Cal. 545; Solomon v. Reese, 34 Cal. 28; Sanborn v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County, 60 Cal. 425; Dashiell v. Slingerland, 60 Cal. 653.)
Ho answer was filed, and the time within which the defendant was granted leave to answer having expired, the cleric was authorized to enter his default, and a judgment for the amount specified in the summons. (Code Civ. Proc. § 385.)
As the appeal is from the judgment alone, we have nothing before us except the judgment roll in which notice of the overruling of his demurrer would not appear, even if such notice had been given. If none was given, and the defendant wished to avail himself of the omission, he should have moved in the court below to set aside the default and judgment on that ground, and if his motion had been denied, appealed from the order denying such motion. In that way alone could he have got the question which he now seeks to raise before this court.
Judgment affirmed.
Thornton, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.
Hearing in Bank denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.