Legal Opinion
Linott v. Rowland
California Supreme Court
Decided December 29, 1897No. L. A. No. 357PublishedCited by 21 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order refusing to quash an execution. W. H. Clark, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
The complaint herein is upon a promissory note purporting to have been made by four persons who are named as defendants in the action. Judgment by default was rendered against three of the defendants, from which one of them—Thomas Rowland—has appealed.
The affidavit of service of the summons and complaint upon the appellant is as follows:
“[Title of Court and Cause.]
“G. L. Wilson, being duly sworn, deposes and says: T am, and was at the time of service of summons hereinafter mentioned, a white male citizen of the United States, over twenty-one years of age, and competent to he a witness on the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Collins v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Reinhart v. LugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Barber v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- de McKinlay v. TuttleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Schneider v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Cole v. Roebling Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Thompson v. CookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Sheehy v. Roman Catholic ArchbishopCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- San Diego Savings Bank v. GoodsellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- W. H. Marston Co. v. KochritzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.