Bowers v. Dickerson

18 Cal. 420, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 219
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1861·Published·Cited by 21 cases

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

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

18 Cal. 420 (Bowers v. Dickerson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

3123 SMB v. Horn CA2/7
California Court of Appeal, 2021
A & B METAL PRODUCTS v. MacArthur Properties, Inc.
11 Cal. App. 3d 642 (California Court of Appeal, 1970)
Tuck v. Thuesen
10 Cal. App. 3d 193 (California Court of Appeal, 1970)
Buck v. Morrossis
250 P.2d 270 (California Court of Appeal, 1952)
Savage v. Stokes
28 P.2d 900 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1934)
Scheinwald v. Bartlett, Judge
271 P. 468 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1928)
Gutierrez v. Romero
210 P. 470 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1922)
Cuddahy v. Gragg
189 P. 721 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Christerson v. French
182 P. 27 (California Supreme Court, 1919)
Collins v. Bicknell
182 P. 763 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Bank of Haywards v. Kenyon
163 P. 869 (California Court of Appeal, 1917)
Ortega v. Vigil
158 P. 487 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1916)
Bertagnolli Bros. v. Bertagnolli
148 P. 374 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1915)
Patxot v. Nadal
19 P.R. 350 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1913)
Juncos Central Co. v. Rodríguez
16 P.R. 286 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1910)
Lunnun v. Morris
95 P. 907 (California Court of Appeal, 1908)
Banville v. Sullivan
11 App. D.C. 23 (D.C. Circuit, 1897)
Acock v. Halsey
27 P. 193 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Drake v. Duvenick
45 Cal. 455 (California Supreme Court, 1873)