Reese v. Mahoney
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Twelfth Judicial District. This was an action of ejectment to recover certain lots in San Francisco brought against the appellants, David and Dennis Ma-honey, and t,en others. The complaint was filed Oct. 31st, 1854, and summons was served on all the defendants early in November following.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Twelfth Judicial District. This was an action of ejectment to recover certain lots in San Francisco brought against the appellants, David and Dennis Ma-honey, and t,en others. The complaint was filed Oct. 31st, 1854, and summons was served on all the defendants early in November following. Only two of the defendants answered; the others, including appellants, making default, the entry of which was made, on motion of plaintiffs, November 27th, 1854. Two trials were subsequently had upon the issues raised in the answers of the defendants who had appeared, in each of which the…
1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.
Cope, J. and Norton, J. concurring.
The motion to open the default entered against the defendants, David and Dennis Mahoney, and to allow them to answer to the complaint, was properly denied. Then* default was entered in *308November, 1854, and the motion was made in September, 1861— nearly seven years afterwards. The delay in the motion is attempted to be explained by the existence of an alleged verbal stipulation of the plaintiff, that the default should be set aside, and the pendency of negotiations for a settlement until within a few days previous. It is also alleged in support of the motion,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Patterson & Frisbie v. ElyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by10 opinions
- Hicks v. ColemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Haley v. Eureka County BankNevada Supreme Court · 1889
- Patchen v. KeeleyNevada Supreme Court · 1887
- McDowell v. OrsiniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Sears v. TaylorSupreme Court of Colorado · 1877
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.