Rosencrantz v. Rogers
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in tbe opinion. Eitberthese (fictitious) persons were defendants, or they were not; if they were defendants judgment could not be entered in their favor, except upon trial of the cause, and that could only be had upon issue joined; if they were not defendants in the suit, they could not move in the cause at all, nor could any judgment be entered therein, in their favor and against the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
The facts are stated in tbe opinion. Eitberthese (fictitious) persons were defendants, or they were not; if they were defendants judgment could not be entered in their favor, except upon trial of the cause, and that could only be had upon issue joined; if they were not defendants in the suit, they could not move in the cause at all, nor could any judgment be entered therein, in their favor and against the plaintiff. (See Dimick v. Derringer, 82 Cal. 488, 1 Chitty, PI. 245.) The Practice Act provides what the complaint shall contain. (Pr. Act, sec. 39). Plaintiff may insert fictitious name…
1Opinion of the CourtWallace, J.
J., Crockett, J., and Temple, J. concurring
The Practice Act (Section 69) provides that “ when the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of the defendant, such *491defendant may be designated in any pleading or proceeding by any name; and when his true name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding may be amended accordingly.” This ignorance of the name must, of course, be real, and not feigned ; it must not be’willful ignorance, or such as might be removed by mere inquiry or a resort to means of information easily accessible.
By Section 39 it is provided that the complaint shall contain * * “ the name…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Dieckmann v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Irving v. CarpentierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- General Motors Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Mercantile Trust Co. v. Stockton Terminal & Eastern RailroadCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Johnson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1963
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.