From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Otto

Supreme Court of California
Jun 27, 1888
77 Cal. 50 (Cal. 1888)

Opinion

         Department One

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Del Norte County.

         COUNSEL:

         Attorney-General Johnson, L. F. Coburn, and L. F. Cooper, for Appellants.

          William H. H. Hart, and Aylett R. Cotton, for Respondents.


         JUDGES: Searls, C. J. McKinstry, J., Paterson, J., and Temple, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          SEARLS, Judge

         This is an appeal by the people from a judgment in their favor for $ 1,769.31, and interest and costs.

         In the complaint plaintiffs demand judgment for a further sum of $ 632.62, making an aggregate of $ 2,281.83.

         After the answer of defendants was filed, plaintiffs moved, "upon all the papers on file in this action," to strike out as sham and irrelevant the answer of defendants, and for judgment as by default on the pleadings in said action.

         No order seems to have been made striking out the answer, but judgment was rendered in favor of the people and against defendants as above stated.

         The case comes before us on an appeal from the judgment. There is no statement or bill of exceptions.

         As the motion was based on all the papers on file in the case, and as the record contains only the judgment roll, non constat but there was something in the papers on file, and which are not a part of the judgment roll, which warranted the court in awarding judgment for the amount specified in such judgment.

         The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Otto

Supreme Court of California
Jun 27, 1888
77 Cal. 50 (Cal. 1888)
Case details for

People v. Otto

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. WILLIAM H. OTTO et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jun 27, 1888

Citations

77 Cal. 50 (Cal. 1888)
18 P. 872

Citing Cases

Sels v. Greene

Hulsman v. Todd, 96 Cal. 228, 31 P. 39. See, also, Tompkins v. Railroad Co., 66 Cal. 164, 4 P. 1165; Learned…

Drew v. Hicks

But this question has been settled in this state, as well as elsewhere. In Learned v. Castle, 78 Cal., at…