Suydam v. Pitcher
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District. This cause was first decided in October Term, 1853, when Mr. Ch. J. Murray delivered the • opinion of the Court, and Judges Heydeneeldt and Wells concurred. Pitcher, one of the defendants in the Court below, was not served with process; but it appears that the attorney of his co-defendant, who was served, filed an answer for him also, and that the canse proceeded regularly to trial and judgment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District. This cause was first decided in October Term, 1853, when Mr. Ch. J. Murray delivered the • opinion of the Court, and Judges Heydeneeldt and Wells concurred. Pitcher, one of the defendants in the Court below, was not served with process; but it appears that the attorney of his co-defendant, who was served, filed an answer for him also, and that the canse proceeded regularly to trial and judgment. The Court below, upon motion and affidavits, vacated the judgment as to Pitcher, from which order the plaintiff appealed. It is contended on the part of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Ch. J. Murray
Upon a re-argument, at this term, delivered the following opinion:
On the re-argnment of this cause, our attention has been particularly directed to the 68th section of the Practice Act, under which the authority of the Court below is said to be exercised.
After an examination of this section, we see no reason to change the opinion already given.
An appearance by attorney, at common law and by the express letter of our statute, amounts to an acknowledgment or waiver of service.
Such cases are not within the section referred to.
2Cited by11 opinions
- Gagnon Co., Inc. v. Nevada Desert InnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- People v. McAllisterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Castro v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Sampson v. OhleyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Haverstick v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1934
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.