Legal Opinion

Cowan Oil & Refining Co. v. Miley Petroleum Corp.

Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California

Decided January 28, 1931No. C. A. No. 276PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

Defendant filed an answer in which is included a counterclaim. Thereafter plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer and enter judgment under section 831d of the Code of Civil Procedure was granted, and judgment was entered against defendant for the amount sued for. From this judgment defendant appeals and in support of its appeal contends that section 831d is unconstitutional because it deprives the defendant of a jury trial (Const., art. I, see. 7) and does not provide due process of law (Const., art. I, sec. 13); and further, that if section 831d is valid, an answer containing a complete and…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  2. General Investment Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
  3. Maurice O'Meara Co. v. National Park BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
  4. People v. TrocheCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Dwan v. MassareneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Schau v. MorganWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API