Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gray v. Hall

California Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1928No. Docket No. Sac. 4050Published

1Dissent

PRESTON, J., Dissenting.

I am unable to concur in the conclusion in this ease. I heartily concur, however, in so much of the opinion as holds the answer on file to be a sufficient traverse of the allegations of the complaint.

The net result of the situation then is that a defendant who has fully answered the plaintiff’s complaint has, without a hearing or a chance to be heard, had his property taken from him by ex parte action of the court. The question may again be stated as follows: Is due process of law satisfied where a defendant has appeared and set up a complete defense to the cause of…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Truax v. CorriganSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  2. Hovey v. ElliottSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  3. Galpin v. PageSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  4. Matter of the Estate Op Bernard NewManCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  5. State ex rel. Milwaukee Medical College v. ChittendenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906

30 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