Polock v. Hunt
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. The respondent sued the appellants as indorsees of two promissory notes, one made by the appellants, payable to Berthelot & Comire, and the other made by Berthelot & Comire, payable to the appellants, and both indorsed to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. The respondent sued the appellants as indorsees of two promissory notes, one made by the appellants, payable to Berthelot & Comire, and the other made by Berthelot & Comire, payable to the appellants, and both indorsed to the plaintiff. A summons was issued on the 1st of July, 1851, in the form prescribed by the act of 1850. On the 5th of July, the plaintiff sued out a writ of attachment, upon filing an affidavit and undertaking. The defendants moved to set aside the proceedings, on the ground that the summons was not in conformity…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Murray
The record in this cause is encumbered with trivial and frivolous objections, taken, in some instances, to a proper exercise of discretion by the Court below. The summons issued was in the form provided by the old Practice Act. After many rulings and counter-rulings by the Court, and exceptions by counsel, the Court gave the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint and summons. From this order the defendants appealed. The point on which the defendants seem most to rely is, that the Court had no power to allow the plaintiff to- amend the summons; that if it was defective, the Court could not…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Lyman v. MiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Keybers v. McComberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885