City of Los Angeles v. L.A. Farming & Milling Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
On July 24, 1903, plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant above named. The judgment was rendered upon the default of said defendant, duly entered for its failure to appear after due personal service of summons. On October 24, 1904, more than a year afterward, the defendant served on plaintiff a notice of motion to set aside the default and judgment. The ground of the motion, as stated in the notice, was that the judgment is void on the face of the record, for want of jurisdiction. The motion was denied and the defendant appeals from the order.
The complaint states in the usual form…
2Cited by9 opinions
- City of Los Angeles v. City of San FernandoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Postal Ben. Ins. Co. v. JohnsonArizona Supreme Court · 1946
- Hamblin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Bristol Convalescent Hospital v. StoneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Batchelor v. FinnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.