Schloss v. White
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixth District. The suit was against the Sheriff, White, and his seven sureties, as to two of whom the record does not show any service, and they made no appearance. Some of them demurred, on the ground that the complaint did. not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Demurrer overruled, answer filed, and the case submitted on the facts stated in the opinion. Judgment was rendered against all of the defendants, who appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Cope, J. concurring.
This was a suit brought on a Sheriff’s bond against the officer and his sureties. It seems that two of his sureties, Selby and Barr, were not served with process. The respondent contends that the mere failure of the record to show service on a defendant, is not matter for reversal, since, in a Court of general jurisdiction, the regularity of its proceedings is presumed. Some authorities are cited to sustain this view. But our practice has been different. While possibly, a judgment so obtained might not be impeached collaterally, (though see Parsons v. Davis, 3 Cal. 421)…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ingraham v. GildemeesterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
- Parsons v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1853
3Cited by10 opinions
- Burke v. Inter-State Savings & Loan Ass'nMontana Supreme Court · 1901
- Trullenger v. ToddOregon Supreme Court · 1873
- Waters v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- Hawkins v. ThomasIndiana Court of Appeals · 1891
- Dysart v. LurtySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1895
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.