Lawrence v. Ballou
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Ejectment against John Q. A. Ballou, E. H. Parker, and others, to recover a tract of land known as the Hatch claim, being a part of the Potrero Nuevo in the city of San Francisco.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Ejectment against John Q. A. Ballou, E. H. Parker, and others, to recover a tract of land known as the Hatch claim, being a part of the Potrero Nuevo in the city of San Francisco. The complaint was filed on the 16th day of January, 1866. Parker alone answered, and his answer was filed on the 15th day of February, 1866. He afterwards, but at what time the record does not show, filed an amended answer. On the 19th of April, 1871, on motion of the plaintiff’s attorney, defendant Parker consenting…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, McKinstry, J.:
These are cross-appeals in the same cause, and were argued together.
The Hazard Powder Company did not become a party to this action until the 19th day of April, 1871, when its answer was in effect filed. The plaintiff having moved to make the company a party defendant on the 19th of April, and having stipulated on the 13th of May that the answer should be filed on that day as of the 19th of April, cannot be *264heard to say that the company was not a party and present in court from the last-named day.
If the Hazard Powder Company be considered as appearing on the 19th…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Matteson v. WagonerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Colonial & United States Mortgage Co. v. Northwest Thresher Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1905
- Harrigan v. Home Life Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
- Sidway v. Missouri Land & Live Stock Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Turcott v. RailroadTennessee Supreme Court · 1898
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.