William Wolff & Co. v. Canadian Pacific Railway
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco setting aside a judgment ¡by default, and from an order vacating an order requiring the payment of counsel fees as a condition of setting aside the judgment The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Vanclief, C.
— The appellant is a California corporation, and, as such, on June 30, 1888, brought an action in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco against the respondent, a foreign corporation, to recover damages for an alleged failure safely to carry and’ deliver certain goods, the property of appellant, from New York to San Francisco.
The summons was served upon Moses M. Stern, who is described in the affidavit of service as the business agent of the defendant. Judgment by default was rendered July 16, 1888. On the following day the defendant’s attorney obtained an…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Watson v. Francisco & Humboldt Bay RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Cameron v. CarrollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Radway v. GrahamNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1857
- Dougherty v. Nevada BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Chamberlin v. County of Del NorteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Benjamin v. Dalmo Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1948
- Waite v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1923
- Banta v. SillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Smith v. Pelton Water Wheel Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Pellissier v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.