Carpentier v. Minturn
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth District, City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtRhodes, C. J.
The plaintiff having filed his complaint, procured a summons and a certified copy of the complaint, but mislaid them, and did not discover them until after the expiration *451of more than, eight years. Soon after finding them, he caused them to be served on .the defendants. The excuse for the delay in serving the papers is, that he mislaid and forgot them. The Court, on the defendant’s motion, ordered the summons to be set aside and the complaint to be stricken from the files. There was no abuse of discretion in granting the motion, and, in our opinion, the order was fully justified by the facts…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Grigsby v. Napa CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Dupuy v. ShearCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Reynolds v. PageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
3Cited by5 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Stone v. JefferdsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Shaw v. MartinIdaho Supreme Court · 1911
- Werner Piano Co. v. BakerIdaho Supreme Court · 1922
- Murray v. GleesonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Estate of Chavier v. Estate of GiráldezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1909