Barling v. Weeks
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco setting aside a default of plaintiff, and allowing him to file an amended complaint. Frank «1. Murasky, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHall, J.
This is an appeal from an order granting plaintiff’s motion to set aside the default of plaintiff for failure to file an amended complaint after demurrer sustained, and granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
The motion was made upon the usual ground that the failure to file the amended complaint in time occurred through the mistake of plaintiff’s attorney, and it is first urged as a ground for the reversal of the order that the showing made by plaintiff as to the mistake was insufficient to justify the order made by the court.
The granting of motions to set aside defaults taken…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Watson v. Francisco & Humboldt Bay RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Melde v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Nicoll v. WeldonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- William Wolff & Co. v. Canadian Pacific RailwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Winchester v. BlackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kent v. KentCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Cohen v. KaufmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Woods Leasing Co. v. FuncheonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sandra Sanford and Midway Auction Company a/k/a Gilbert and Associates, LLC (mem. dec.)Indiana Court of Appeals · 2020