Abbe v. Marr

14 Cal. 210
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 14 Cal. 210 (Abbe v. Marr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abbe v. Marr, 14 Cal. 210 (Cal. 1859).

Opinion

Baldwin, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court—Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.

Defendant, Williams, appeals from a judgment which was taken against him by default after publication. Waiving the very serious point made by the Appellant, that the judgment by default was irregular, for non-complianco ivith the statutory provisions, we are met by an insuperable objection to the judgment upon the face of the complaint. Judgment is taken upon all the matters in the complaint, of which, if we understand the pleading aright, is the charge against one of the defendants, of prevailing upon the plaintiff to enter into a conspiracy to cheat the other defendants in a horse-race, byway of “ getting even ”—as it is expressed—on a loss the plaintiff had sustained on a former race, in which last he bad been swindled, and not only to “ got even,” but to remunerate and console himself for his first misfortune, by obtaining some fourteen hundred dollars more than he had lost by like practices. Eo Court of Justice can listen to such a case. When the plaintiff asserts his own turpitude in this way, he sends his case out of Court. If, in attempting, by way of reprisal or otherwise, to swindle another, he becomes the victim of his own arts, it may become a question in morals or in honor, which party is the more culpable; Courts of Law entertain no discussion on the subject, but terminate the controversy by shutting their doors in the face of the intruder.

A judgment by default can no more be taken, under our Practice Act, when the complaint shows no legal cause of action, [212]*212than it can be taken over a general demurrer; and, on more general principles, in the absence of objections, Courts of Justice, not from what they conceive to be due to the parties to the controversy, but from what they consider due to the law, refuse to take cognizance of such cases.

Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bradley v. Doherty
30 Cal. App. 3d 991 (California Court of Appeal, 1973)
Beach v. Arblaster
194 Cal. App. 2d 145 (California Court of Appeal, 1961)
Wallace v. Opinham
165 P.2d 709 (California Court of Appeal, 1946)
Marshall v. Lovell
19 F.2d 751 (Eighth Circuit, 1927)
Glos v. McBride
191 P. 67 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Schmitt v. Gibson
107 P. 571 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
Levy v. Kansas City
168 F. 524 (Eighth Circuit, 1909)
Stewart v. Wright
147 F. 321 (Eighth Circuit, 1906)
Dame v. Cochiti Reduction & Improvement Co.
79 P. 296 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1905)
Wright v. Stewart
130 F. 905 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri, 1904)
Scottish American Mortgage Co. v. Reeve
72 N.W. 1088 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1897)
Greer v. Payne
46 P. 190 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1896)
Selz, Schwab & Co. v. Tucker
37 P. 249 (Utah Supreme Court, 1894)
Arkansas River Land, Reservoir & Canal Co. v. Nelson
4 Colo. App. 438 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1894)
Old v. Mohler
23 N.E. 967 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1890)
Watson v. Murray
23 N.J. Eq. 257 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1872)
Choynski v. Cohen
39 Cal. 501 (California Supreme Court, 1870)
Davis v. Mitchell
34 Cal. 81 (California Supreme Court, 1867)
Valentine v. Stewart
15 Cal. 387 (California Supreme Court, 1860)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Cal. 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abbe-v-marr-cal-1859.