Caulfield v. Doe
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County. The plaintiff brought suit in forcible entry, on the 13th of March, 1872, and had judgment by default, on the 24th day of April, 1872. Subsequently two of the defendants moved that the judgment be set aside; that they be allowed to appear and answer, and that they be restored to possession of the premises.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County. The plaintiff brought suit in forcible entry, on the 13th of March, 1872, and had judgment by default, on the 24th day of April, 1872. Subsequently two of the defendants moved that the judgment be set aside; that they be allowed to appear and answer, and that they be restored to possession of the premises. On the hearing of the motion affidavits were filed, and the testimony of several witnesses was taken. The Court made an order granting the motion, and from this order the plaintiff appealed upon a bill of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The bill of exceptions taken upon the entry of the order appealed from cannot be considered. We have often said that an order made after, rendition of judgment, unless founded upon affidavits, can be reviewed only by statement on appeal, and in no case by bill of exceptions. This general rule, as we understand, is not questioned by the appellant. But it is insisted that the Code of Civil Procedure, lately enacted, operates a change of the rule of practice in this respect, and so it does. (Sec. 646, et seq.) The bill of exceptions in this case was, however, settled and filed, and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Holder v. Superior Court of San Diego Cty.California Court of Appeal · 1969
- Blade v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Grafton v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- E. Reinhart & Co. v. Company DNevada Supreme Court · 1897