Donian v. Danielian
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
VALENTINE, J., pro tem.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in an action to recover upon a judgment of the county court of Cook County, Illinois. Appellant, among other things, contends that the demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained because the complaint did not allege that any pleadings had ever been filed on which a judgment could he bqsed, or that the judgment there alleged was supported by any pleading, nor that the law of Illinois dispensed with, such pleading, nor did the complaint allege the issuance or service of any summons.
Section 456 of the Code of Civil…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Lee v. MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Hancock v. Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Mulcahy v. BuckleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Redington v. CornwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Hawthorne v. SiegelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Richter v. AdamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Ziganto v. TaylorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- McCully v. GanoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Wixted v. FletcherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Alonso Investment Corp. v. DoffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.