Hancock v. Pico
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Seveuteeuth District, Los Angeles County. The complaint in this case alleges that, in the month of October, A. D. 1861, the defendant collected and received as Trustee of the plaintiff, the sum of six thousand one hundred and twenty dollars, of which the defendant afterward, in the exercise of said trust, paid and expended the sum of five thousand dollars; that, in the month of January 1868, plaintiff demanded payment of the balance…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Seveuteeuth District, Los Angeles County. The complaint in this case alleges that, in the month of October, A. D. 1861, the defendant collected and received as Trustee of the plaintiff, the sum of six thousand one hundred and twenty dollars, of which the defendant afterward, in the exercise of said trust, paid and expended the sum of five thousand dollars; that, in the month of January 1868, plaintiff demanded payment of the balance remaining in the hands of defendant amounting to one thousand one hundred and twenty dollars, and that defendant refused,…
1Opinion of the CourtWallace, J.
delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court, Temple, J., Cbockett, J., and [Rhodes, C. J., concurring:
A judgment by default having been rendered against tbe defendant in an action upon contract for tbe recovery of money, be made a motion to open tbe default, and from tbe order denying tbe motion be brings tbis appeal.
Tbe defendant was personally served, in tbe county in wbicb tbe action was brought, with tbe summons and copy of tbe complaint, wbicb was verified in tbe usual form. He retained attorneys, to whom be entrusted tbe defence of tbe case, and then left tbe State and went on a visit to the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Donlan v. Thompson Falls Copper & Milling Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1910
- Scilley v. BabcockMontana Supreme Court · 1909
- Pickerill v. StrainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925