Bailey v. Sloan

4 P. 349, 65 Cal. 387, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 567
California Supreme Court·Decided July 18, 1884·No. No. 9,415·Published·Cited by 21 cases

Opinion

Sharpstein, J.

The demurrer was properly overruled. The demand according to the ad damnum clause of the complaint, exclusive of interest, exceeds $300. The ad damnum clause in the complaint is the test of jurisdiction, (Maxfield v. Johnson, 30 Cal. 545; Solomon v. Reese, 34 Cal. 28; Sanborn v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County, 60 Cal. 425; Dashiell v. Slingerland, 60 Cal. 653.)

Ho answer was filed, and the time within which the defendant was granted leave to answer having expired, the cleric was authorized to enter his default, and a judgment for the amount specified in the summons. (Code Civ. Proc. § 385.)

As the appeal is from the judgment alone, we have nothing before us except the judgment roll in which notice of the overruling of his demurrer would not appear, even if such notice had been given. If none was given, and the defendant wished to avail himself of the omission, he should have moved in the court below to set aside the default and judgment on that ground, and if his motion had been denied, appealed from the order denying such motion. In that way alone could he have got the question which he now seeks to raise before this court.

Judgment affirmed.

Thornton, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

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

Bailey v. Sloan, 4 P. 349, 65 Cal. 387, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 567 (Cal. 1884).

4 P. 349 (Bailey v. Sloan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Yurkas v. Zampatti
121 P.2d 17 (California Court of Appeal, 1942)
Frost v. Mighetto
71 P.2d 932 (California Court of Appeal, 1937)
de la Torre v. National City Bank
91 F.2d 399 (First Circuit, 1937)
National City Bank v. de la Torre
48 P.R. 130 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1935)
National City Bank of New York v. O'Neill
48 P.R. Dec. 134 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1935)
Hammell v. Superior Court
17 P.2d 101 (California Supreme Court, 1932)
State v. Jensen
279 P. 506 (Utah Supreme Court, 1929)
Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Conejo Oil Co.
267 P. 320 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
Pioneer Truck Co. v. Clark
186 P. 839 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Turner v. Municipal Council of San Juan
24 P.R. 556 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1916)
Turner v. Concejo Municipal de San Juan
24 P.R. Dec. 594 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1916)
Oppenheimer v. Regan
79 P. 695 (Montana Supreme Court, 1905)
Lehnhardt v. Jennings
51 P. 195 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Ventura County v. Clay
46 P. 9 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
Henigan v. Ervin
42 P. 457 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Wall v. Heald
30 P. 551 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Lord v. Thomas
27 P. 410 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Greenbaum v. Martinez
25 P. 12 (California Supreme Court, 1890)
Lord v. Goldberg
22 P. 1126 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Carter v. Paige
20 P. 729 (California Supreme Court, 1889)