Legal Opinion

Vaughn v. Pine Creek Tungsten Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 7, 1928No. Docket No. 5260PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYork, J.

Appeal by defendant, a foreign corporation, from an order of the trial court denying its motion to set aside a default and vacate a judgment against it entered thereon.

The motion to vacate was made upon the ground that the service of summons and complaint was made by a process- server upon one Shapley as the general manager and “designated agent” of defendant, a foreign corporation, and that said Shapley was not the general manager or designated agent of said corporation, and said corporation was not doing business in the state of California at the time of the service of the summons and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McGuinness v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Smith v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Eureka Mercantile Co. v. California InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Willey v. the Benedict Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Hanson v. HansonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Estate of EstremCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Thompson v. CookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Richert v. Benson Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1934
  4. People v. One 1941 Chrysler SedanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  5. Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co.California Supreme Court · 1928

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

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

Powered by the Exa API