Hartman v. Olvera
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Eighteenth Judicial District, County of San Diego. Action to recover judgment for services as an attorney at law, commenced October 16, 1872. The defendant demurred to the complaint, the demurrer was overruled, and time given to answer.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Eighteenth Judicial District, County of San Diego. Action to recover judgment for services as an attorney at law, commenced October 16, 1872. The defendant demurred to the complaint, the demurrer was overruled, and time given to answer. He failed to answer within the time and his default was entered and judgment rendered against him on the 28th day of April, 1873. He moved to set aside the default and judgment on the 9th day of May, 1873, and on the 1st day of November, 1873, the Court made an order setting the same aside on condition that “within two weeks…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The defendant not having complied with the terms upon which the default and judgment had been set aside, both the default and judgment remained in force in the same manner as if the order for setting them aside had not been made.
The second application to set aside the default and judgment came too late, it having been made more than five months after the adjournment of the term at which the judgment had been entered.
Order of February 9, 1874, reversed. Remittitur forthwith.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Jacuzzi v. Jacuzzi Bros., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1966
- State ex rel. Hickey v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1911
- State ex rel. Von Phul v. HarrisonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Monllor & Co. v. HutchisonSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1912
- Ronda v. OrtizSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1924
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.