From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brock v. Martinovich

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1880
55 Cal. 516 (Cal. 1880)


         Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, in the Twenty-third District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Thornton, J.


         A. D. Splivalo, for Appellant.

          J. M. Wood, for Respondent.

         JUDGES: McKee, J., dissented.


         In Bank.

         The Court:

         The defendant Splivalo was sued by the fictitious name of John Doe. Both he and his codefendant were regularly served with process, and both failed to appear in the cause. The default of each was duly entered, and afterward, the case coming on regularly to be heard, the plaintiff's attorney asked and obtained leave of the Court to insert in the complaint the true name of Splivalo in lieu of the fictitious name by which he was sued; and thereupon, the Court, after hearing the necessary proof, gave judgment in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.

         Splivalo appeals from the judgment, claiming that he was entitled to service of the complaint after his true name had been inserted, and to ten days thereafter within which to answer. No authority has been cited in support of his position, except § 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which, we think, has no application here. There is no merit in the appeal.

         Judgment affirmed.

Summaries of

Brock v. Martinovich

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1880
55 Cal. 516 (Cal. 1880)
Case details for

Brock v. Martinovich

Case Details

Full title:BROCK v. MARTINOVICH et al.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 1, 1880


55 Cal. 516 (Cal. 1880)

Citing Cases

Harney v. Corcoran

The amendment to the caption of the complaint made at the trial, by striking out therefrom the names of the…

Steinbauer v. Bondesen

This rule is without application, however, where the amendment is merely as to formal or immaterial matters,…