Bowers v. Dickerson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Eleventh District. Suit on a promissory note. Complaint filed September 21st, 1860, summons served October 11th, 1860, and a demurrer filed by defendant on the twenty-third of October. January 23d, 1861, the demurrer was overruled, and leave given to answer, and an answer was filed the same day.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Eleventh District. Suit on a promissory note. Complaint filed September 21st, 1860, summons served October 11th, 1860, and a demurrer filed by defendant on the twenty-third of October. January 23d, 1861, the demurrer was overruled, and leave given to answer, and an answer was filed the same day. Before the demurrer was taken up, plaintiff’s counsel stating that there were suspicions that the date of the return on the summons had been altered from the eleventh to the eighteenth of October, it was stipulated that action on the demurrer' and preparing the case for trial should…
1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.
Field, C. J. and Baldwin, J. concurring.
We see no error in the refusal of the Court to set aside the answer, and allow the plaintiff to take judgment by default. It was, perhaps, not strictly regular to file the answer after the time for answering had expired without leave of the Court; but as the default of the defendant had not been entered, we think the filing was not a nullity. It was at most a mere irregularity, for which the answer might have been stricken out, but on account of which the plaintiff was not entitled to have it set aside, unless the Court, in the exercise of its…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Christerson v. FrenchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Drake v. DuvenickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Acock v. HalseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Buck v. MorrossisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Savage v. StokesIdaho Supreme Court · 1934
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.