Bowers v. Dickerson

California Supreme Court

Bowers v. Dickerson

18 Cal. 420, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 219

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1861

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 18 Cal. 420 (Bowers v. Dickerson) 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

Bowers v. Dickerson, 18 Cal. 420, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 219 (Cal. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. and Baldwin, J. concurring.

We see no error in the refusal of the Court to set aside the answer, and allow the plaintiff to take judgment by default. It was, perhaps, not strictly regular to file the answer after the time for answering had expired without leave of the Court; but as the default of the defendant had not been entered, we think the filing was not a nullity. It was at most a mere irregularity, for which the answer might have been stricken out, but on account of which the plaintiff was not entitled to have it set aside, unless the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, deemed such to be the proper course. The whole proceedings were in fieri, and our opinion is that the Court had absolute power either to retain the answer or to permit another to be filed, or to pursue whatever course in that respect the justice of the case required. A defendant cannot for these purposes be considered in default until his default has been actually entered in accordance with the statute. There can be no doubt of the correctness of this view of the subject.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. and Baldwin, J. concurring.

We see no error in the refusal of the Court to set aside the answer, and allow the plaintiff to take judgment by default. It was, perhaps, not strictly regular to file the answer after the time for answering had expired without leave of the Court; but as the default of the defendant had not been entered, we think the filing was not a nullity. It was at most a mere irregularity, for which the answer might have been stricken out, but on account of which the plaintiff was not entitled to have it set aside, unless the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, deemed such to be the proper course. The whole proceedings were in fieri, and our opinion is that the Court had absolute power either to retain the answer or to permit another to be filed, or to pursue whatever course in that respect the justice of the case required. A defendant cannot for these purposes be considered in default until his default has been actually entered in accordance with the statute. There can be no doubt of the correctness of this view of the subject.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Cal. 420, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowers-v-dickerson-cal-1861.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack