Legal Opinion

Pingree v. Reynolds

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 29, 1937No. Civ. 10447PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DOOLING, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs from an order setting aside a default entered after failure to appear and plead within the time allowed by law. The motion was supported by the affidavit of defendant’s attorney. The sufficiency of the affidavit to support the order is attacked on the grounds that the facts set out do not show any legal justification for defendant’s failure to appear in time, and that they are hearsay as to affiant attorney. We pass these questions because the affidavit of merits is clearly insufficient under the settled practice. The affidavit of merits…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bailey v. TaaffeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  2. Nickerson v. California Raisin Co.California Supreme Court · 1882
  3. Ross v. San Diego Glazed Cement Pipe Co.California Court of Appeal · 1920
  4. Slater v. SeloverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
  5. Andrews v. JacobyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Beard v. BeardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Marsh v. RiskasArizona Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Daniels v. DanielsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  4. Denke v. BowesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API