From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mulholland v. Heyneman

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1862
19 Cal. 605 (Cal. 1862)

Opinion

         Appeal from the Twelfth District.

         COUNSEL:

         B. S. Brooks, for Appellants, cited Sedgw. Const. and Stat. Const. 438; Mayor of New York v. Furze, 3 Hill, 612, and cases there cited.

          Tompkins & Compton, for Respondent, cited Haight v. Green, ante; Fowler v. Collyer, 2 E. D. Smith, 125; Mulhom v. Hyde , 3 Id.; Bruge v. Baker, 4 Abb. 11.


         JUDGES: Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court. Field, C. J. concurring.

         OPINION

          COPE, Judge

         This is an appeal from an order refusing to set aside a judgment on the ground of surprise. The application was addressed to the legal discretion of the Court; and upon the affidavits before us, we cannot undertake to say that this discretion has been improperly exercised. The recent case of Haight v. Green is decisive of the matter.

         Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Mulholland v. Heyneman

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1862
19 Cal. 605 (Cal. 1862)
Case details for

Mulholland v. Heyneman

Case Details

Full title:MULHOLLAND v. HEYNEMAN et al.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 1, 1862

Citations

19 Cal. 605 (Cal. 1862)

Citing Cases

Pearson v. Drobaz Fishing Co.

Applications to set aside defaults are addressed to the sound, legal discretion of the trial court, and if…

O'Brien v. Leach

(Norton v. Atchison etc. R.R. Co., 97 Cal. 390;Edwardsv. Hellings, 103 Cal. 206; Haight v. Green, 19 Cal.…