Sav. & Loan Soc'y v. Meeks
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, from an order refusing a new trial, from a judgment for a deficiency arising from a sale of mortgaged premises, and from an order refusing to set it aside. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKee, J.
In this case there are four appeals. Of the first two, one is from a judgment by default, and the other from an order denying a motion for a new trial. Of the last two, one is from a judgment for a deficiency arising from the sale of mortgaged premises, and the other from an order denying a motion to vacate and set it aside.
1. There can be no new trial in cases of default.
2. The appeal from the judgment by default was not taken within sixty days after the entry of judgment, and nothing can be reviewed, except what appears on the judgment roll.
But the judgment roll shows : That on the 31st of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hamar v. MedskerIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
- Leonis v. LazzarovichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Hayford v. KocherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by15 opinions
- Carney v. SimmondsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Foley v. FoleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Christensen v. HollingsworthIdaho Supreme Court · 1898
- Jacuzzi v. Jacuzzi Bros., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1966
- Reeves v. ReevesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.