Legal Opinion

Carter v. Paige

California Supreme Court

Decided March 7, 1889No. 12,637PublishedCited by 3 opinions

APPEAL from Superior Court, Stanislaus County; Charles H. Marks, Special Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.

Plaintiff had judgment in the court below. Defendant appeals from the judgment upon the judgment-roll alone.

The judgment-roll shows that, after defendant had answered the original complaint, an amended complaint was filed on the sixth day of June, 1887. There was no answer to the amended complaint. On July 23d—about forty-seven days after the filing of the amended complaint—the court rendered judgment for plaintiff. This judgment commences as follows: “In this action the defendant, Timothy Paige, having been regularly served with process, and having failed to appear and answer to the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bailey v. SloanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Livermore v. WebbCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Montgomery v. TuttCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  4. Lower Kings River Water Ditch Co. v. Kings River & Fresno Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Carter v. PaigeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Patxot v. NadalSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1913
  3. Patxot v. NadalSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API