Smith v. Curtis
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District. This action was brought against L. Curtis and Geo. E. Clarke, and separate writs served upon each defendant. After service, and without notice to any one, the name of James M. Curtis, by order of the Court, was substituted for that of L. Curtis, and judgment by default taken to be enforced against the joint property .of James M. Curtis and George E. Clarke, and against the separate property of Clarke.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District. This action was brought against L. Curtis and Geo. E. Clarke, and separate writs served upon each defendant. After service, and without notice to any one, the name of James M. Curtis, by order of the Court, was substituted for that of L. Curtis, and judgment by default taken to be enforced against the joint property .of James M. Curtis and George E. Clarke, and against the separate property of Clarke. An execution was issued upon this judgment, and levied upon the joint property of James M. Curtis and George E. Clarke. James M.…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
No exception having been taken to the order of the Court below, overruling the motion to set aside the judgment, and quash the execution, the action of that Court, in this respect, cannot be reviewed here.
As to the order of the Court permitting the plaintiff to insert the name of James M. Curtis in the place of L. Curtis, without notice to the former, we think the error, if any, was cured by the appearance and answer of the defendant, James M. Curtis, in the Court below. The only object of a summons is to bring a party into Court, and if that object be attained by the appearance and pleading…
2Cited by4 opinions
- People ex rel. McLane v. BondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Ford v. BushardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Dyas v. KeatonMontana Supreme Court · 1880
- Goodman v. Minear Mining & Milling Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1867