From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aiken v. Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Co.

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1856
6 Cal. 186 (Cal. 1856)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, County of Mariposa.

         COUNSEL

          C. Temple Emmet, for Appellant.

          Cole & Whiting, and R. H. Daly, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Terry. Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

         OPINION

          TERRY, Judge

         This was an action against a corporation, by its corporate name. The Sheriff's return shows that the summons was served on " defendant Waddell, who 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 twenty-ninth 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 agent thereof." As Waddell was not shown to be one of the officers named, the judgment by default was improperly entered, and is reversed with costs, and cause remanded for further proceedings.


Summaries of

Aiken v. Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Co.

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1856
6 Cal. 186 (Cal. 1856)
Case details for

Aiken v. Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Co.

Case Details

Full title:AIKEN v. THE QUARTZ ROCK MARIPOSA GOLD MINING COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Apr 1, 1856

Citations

6 Cal. 186 (Cal. 1856)

Citing Cases

Ravia Granite Ballast Co. v. Wilson

"The general statute provides that: 'Where the defendant is a corporation, created by the laws of this state,…

O'Brien v. Shaw's Flat & Tuolumne Canal Co.

(Pr. Act, § 29; Aiken v. The Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Company , 6 Cal. 186.)          Judgment…