Aiken v. Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Co.

6 Cal. 186
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1856·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Terry.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

This was an action against a corporation, by its corporate name. The sheriff's return shows that the summons was served on “ defendant, Waddell, yho was in possession of the property;” the name of Waddell is not mentioned in the complaint, and it does not appear how he became a defendant, or of what property he was in possession.

The 29th section of the Practice Act provides that if the suit be against a corporation, the summons shall be served on the president, secretary, cashier, or managing agent thereof.” As Waddell was not shown to be one of the officers named, the judgment by default was [187] improperly entered, and is reversed with costs, and cause remanded for further proceedings.

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

Aiken v. Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Co., 6 Cal. 186 (Cal. 1856).

6 Cal. 186 (Aiken v. Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Earl W. Schott, Inc. v. Kalar
20 Cal. App. 4th 943 (California Court of Appeal, 1993)
Karns v. State Bank & Trust Co.
31 Nev. 170 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1909)
Ravia Granite Ballast Co. v. Wilson
1908 OK 239 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1908)
Southern Building & Loan Ass'n v. Hallum
28 S.W. 420 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1894)
Lonkey v. Keyes Silver Mining Co.
31 P. 57 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1892)
Cairo & Fulton Railroad v. Trout
32 Ark. 17 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1877)
O'Brien v. Shaw's Flat & Tuolomne Canal Co.
10 Cal. 343 (California Supreme Court, 1858)