Kelly v. Bandini
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff sued Juan Bandini and Joseph Beiner, on a joint demand, on the 15th day of August, 1857. The judgment-roll shows that service was made on Bandini, but fails to show service on Beiner. Bandini answered, but Beiner did not appear. On the 21st day of April, 1858, the plaintiffs had a judgment, which, in form, was entered against both of the defendants.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff sued Juan Bandini and Joseph Beiner, on a joint demand, on the 15th day of August, 1857. The judgment-roll shows that service was made on Bandini, but fails to show service on Beiner. Bandini answered, but Beiner did not appear. On the 21st day of April, 1858, the plaintiffs had a judgment, which, in form, was entered against both of the defendants. On the 4th of ¡November, 1859, Bandini died. On the 5th of November, 1873, the defendant was appointed the administratrix of his estate, with the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
The judgment against the deceased, Bandini, was not void, even though it be admitted that his co-defendant, Beiner, was not served with the summons, and that the court acquired no jurisdiction as to him. However the rule *532may have been at common law, it is clear that in this State a valid judgment may be rendered against one of several defendants sued upon a joint contract and duly served with the summons, even though the other defendants are not before the court. Section 32 of the Practice Act, in force when that judgment was rendered, provides that “if the action be against the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Madary v. City of FresnoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Tracy v. MacIntyreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Merchants National Bank of Los Angeles v. Clark-Parker Co.California Supreme Court · 1932
- Iwanaga v. HagopianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919