Aiken v. Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, County of Mariposa. The facts appear in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Terry.
Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
This was an action against a corporation, by its corporate name. The sheriff's return shows that the summons was served on “ defendant, Waddell, yho was in possession of the property;” the name of Waddell is not mentioned in the complaint, and it does not appear how he became a defendant, or of what property he was in possession.
The 29th section of the Practice Act provides that “ if the suit be against a corporation, the summons shall be served on the president, secretary, cashier, or managing…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Cairo & Fulton Railroad v. TroutSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1877
- Southern Building & Loan Ass'n v. HallumSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
- Earl W. Schott, Inc. v. KalarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Lonkey v. Keyes Silver Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1892
- Karns v. State Bank & Trust Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1909
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.