Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Banta v. Siller

California Supreme Court

Decided July 13, 1898No. Sac. No. 297Published

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County and from an order denying a new trial. A. P. Gatlin, Judge, The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1ConcurrenceTemple, J.

I concur, but desire to state that I concur in the conclusion on the point discussed solely because it was so held in Stonesifer v. Kilburn, supra. I think, however, that case was wrongly decided. Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the court to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or other proceeding taken against him. In that case no default or other order had been taken against the moving party when the affidavits were made and the notice given by the moving parties of their application to be relieved; no objection had been made to their right to have the bill of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Carpenter v. Superior Court of San Joaquin Cty.California Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Wunderlin v. CadoganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Jue Fook Sam v. LordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Hodgdon v. S. Pac. R.R Co.California Supreme Court · 1888

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API