Shinn v. Cummins
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Lassen County. The action was to recover a lot of cattle claimed to be the property of plaintiff, and to have been wrongfully taken by defendant. The summons was regular in all respects except that the name of the plaintiff’s attorney was not indorsed upon it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Lassen County. The action was to recover a lot of cattle claimed to be the property of plaintiff, and to have been wrongfully taken by defendant. The summons was regular in all respects except that the name of the plaintiff’s attorney was not indorsed upon it. The defendant moved to dismiss, vacate, and set aside the service on the ground that the summons, was not indorsed as required by section 407 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before the day of the hearing, the time for answering specified in the summons expired, and no demurrer or answer…
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
Appellant insists that it is essential to the validity of a summons that the name of the plaintiff’s attorney be indorsed on it. The Code provides that “the name of the plaintiff’s attorney must be indorsed on the summons.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 407.) There was not in this case a literal compliance with that provision. The name of the plaintiff’s attorney appears on the face and not on the back of the summons. Therefore it is not indorsed on the summons. And if we could see that the defendant might possibly be prejudiced by this circumstance, it would be our duty to reverse the judgment. But we…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Williams v. PittockWashington Supreme Court · 1904
- Central Deep Creek Orchard Co. v. C. C. Taft Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1921
- Keybers v. McComberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Mantle v. CaseyMontana Supreme Court · 1904
- Naderhoff v. Geo. Benz & SonsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.