People v. Goodhue

California Supreme Court
People v. Goodhue, 80 Cal. 199 (Cal. 1889)
22 P. 66; 1889 Cal. LEXIS 887
Paterson, Works

People v. Goodhue

Opinion of the Court

Works, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment. The judgment was rendered October 30, 1865, and this motion was made December 31,1888.

We know of no provision of law which can be held to authorize the vacation of a judgment on a mere motion after so long a time. We have a provision authorizing such a proceeding within a limited time on certain grounds enumerated. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 473; People v. Mullan, 65 Cal. 396.)

The motion here is made by the grantee of the judgment defendant, and is based on two grounds, viz., that the court rendering the judgment had not jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, and that he had, before the suit was brought, fully paid the sum of money which was the basis of the action.

A judgment cannot be attacked in this informal way years after its rendition.

Order affirmed.

Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

Concurring Opinion

Paterson, J., concurring.

I concur in the judgment. If the judgment were void on its face, and the moving party had succeeded to the rights of the defendant, his motion would not be defeated by mere delay, however great, in seeking to have the judgment set aside (People v. Mullan, 65 Cal. 396); but neither of these things appears in this record. Goodhue, the moving party’s grantor, was personally served with summons (including a copy of the complaint) five months prior to the entry of the judgment, and the evidence of assignment to appellant is incompetent and conflicting.

Reference

Full Case Name
THE PEOPLE v. PETER GOODHUE PIONEER LAND COMPANY
Cited By
7 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Motion to Vacate Judgment—Limitation of Time. —There is no provision of law for a mere motion to vacate a judgment after the time limited by section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A judgment cannot be attacked in this informal way years after its rendition, either on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, or on the ground that the debt sued upon was paid before suit.