From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Suydam v. Pitcher & Poole

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1854
4 Cal. 280 (Cal. 1854)

Opinion


4 Cal. 280 SUYDAM et al., Appellants, v. PITCHER & POOLE, Respondents Supreme Court of California July, 1854

         Rehearing Granted 4 Cal. 280 at 281.

         Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District.

         JUDGES: Mr. Ch. J. Murray delivered the opinion of the Court, and Judges Heydenfeldt and Wells concurred.

         OPINION

          MURRAY, Judge

         Upon a re-argument, at this term, Mr. Ch. J. Murray delivered the following opinion:

         On the re-argument of this cause, our attention has been particularly directed to the 68th section of the Practice Act, under which the authority of the Court below is said to be exercised.

         After an examination of this section, we see no reason to change the opinion already given.

         An appearance by attorney, at common law and by the express letter of our statute, amounts to an acknowledgment or waiver of service.

         Such cases are not within the section referred to.


Summaries of

Suydam v. Pitcher & Poole

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1854
4 Cal. 280 (Cal. 1854)
Case details for

Suydam v. Pitcher & Poole

Case Details

Full title:SUYDAM et al., Appellants, v. PITCHER&POOLE, Respondents

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 1, 1854

Citations

4 Cal. 280 (Cal. 1854)

Citing Cases

Holmes v. Rogers

393; Hanson v. Hoitt , 14 Id. 56; Kent v. Richards , 3 Md. Ch. Dec. 392; Hench v. Todhunter, 7 Har. & J. 275;…

Tormey v. Allen

(8 Abb. 177; 16 How. Pr. 371; 17 Abb. 66.)           Thomas A. Brown, for Appellants, argued that the motion…