Catanich v. Hayes
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, County of Alameda. Action commenced December 15th, 1875, to recover judgment on a promissory note. The case comes up on the judgment-roll.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, County of Alameda. Action commenced December 15th, 1875, to recover judgment on a promissory note. The case comes up on the judgment-roll. This shows a service of summons in Alameda County, where the suit was commenced, on the 17th day of December, 1875, a demurrer served and filed on the 27th of the same month, and a default entered on the 17th day of July, 1876. The default recites that the demurrer had been overruled, and the defendant had failed to appear and answer. The judgment was entered on the last named day, and it recites…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment-roll here, and the judgment itself, show a demurrer was interposed to the complaint, and overruled, and *339time given to answer, but fails to show that notice of overruling the demurrer was given to defendants. Proof, or admission of service of this notice, is as much a jurisdictional fact for proceedings in default as proof or admission of service of summons. (Code of Civil Procedure, N. S. secs. 476, 670.)
JV. Hamilton, for the Respondent.
The point made by appellants, that notice of overruling the demurrer was not served on the adverse party, does not appear on the face of the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Jacks v. BaldezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Estate of DamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Orange Growers' Bank v. DuncanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Hart v. Capital Film Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1921
- Hooper v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.