Legal Opinion

People v. Otto

California Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 1888No. 11269PublishedCited by 51 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Del Norte County. The action was brought upon the official bond of Wil- • liam H. Otto, as tax collector of the county of Del Norte. The defendant Otto made default. The sureties filed a' verified answer, which the district attorney moved to strike out as sham and irrelevant, and interposed only for purposes of delay.

Read the full summary

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Del Norte County. The action was brought upon the official bond of Wil- • liam H. Otto, as tax collector of the county of Del Norte. The defendant Otto made default. The sureties filed a' verified answer, which the district attorney moved to strike out as sham and irrelevant, and interposed only for purposes of delay. In the notice of the motion the ‘ district attorney notified the sureties that “on the hearing of said motion the plaintiff will use all the papers on file ' in this action, and at the same time and place the plaintiff will move…

1Opinion of the CourtSearls, C. J.

This is an appeal by the people from a judgment in their favor for $1,769.31, and interest and costs.'

In the complaint plaintiffs demand judgment for a further sum of $632.62, making an aggregate of $2,281.83.

After the answer of defendants was filed, plaintiffs moved, “upon all the papers on file in this action,” to strike out as sham and irrelevant the answer of defendants, and for judgment as by default on the pleadings in said action.

No order seems to have been made striking out the answer, but judgment was rendered in favor of the people and against defendants as above stated.

The case…

2Cited by51 opinions

  1. De Burgh v. De BurghCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Estate of BairdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court of Tulare Cty.California Supreme Court · 1920
  4. California Development Co. v. New Liverpool Salt Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1909
  5. People v. Coit Ranch, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1962

46 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