Celiano v. Giordanengo

California Court of Appeal

Celiano v. Giordanengo

180 P. 543, 40 Cal. App. 219, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 58

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 10, 1919

DocketCiv. No. 2664.

StatusPublished

This text of 180 P. 543 (Celiano v. Giordanengo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Celiano v. Giordanengo, 180 P. 543, 40 Cal. App. 219, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 58 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

KERRIGAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon an order sustaining a general demurrer to plaintiffs’ complaint.

*220 The plaintiffs herein were the defendants in a justice’s court action, and bring this suit in equity for the purpose of setting aside the judgment obtained against them therein, basing their right to this relief upon the ground that the proof of service of summons in said action fails to show that it was served upon each of them as defendants therein.

[1] Whatever merit there may be in this point as an abstract proposition of law it can avail the plaintiffs nothing in this proceeding, for two reasons: (1) That the complaint fails to allege that the defendants in the former suit were not in fact served with summons as required by section 410 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and (2) that they, as defendants in said justice’s court action, had a good defense on the merits thereof.

[2] A defective return of process duly served is not sufficient ground for equity to interfere. (Pico v. Sunol, 6 Cal. 294 ; Eichhoff v. Eichhoff, 107 Cal. 42, [48 Am. St. Rep. 110, 40 Pac. 24] ; 23 Cyc. 996.) And it is the established law in this state that a bill of equity must allege and show that the complainant has a good and meritorious defense to the action at law. (Burbridge v. Rauer, 146 Cal. 21, [79 Pac. 526] ; Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, [82 Pac. 327] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, [161 Pac. 1144]. See, also, Freeman on Judgments, sec. 498 ; 23 Cyc. 1031.)

Under these authorities it must be held that the equitable relief of setting aside a judgment obtained in a court of law will not be granted without an affirmative showing in the complaint that the complainant, as defendant in said action, has ! a good defense on the merits. It should have been made to appear in the complaint in this proceeding that a like judgment would in all probability not result from a new prosecution of the action at law.

The judgment is affirmed.

Waste, P. J., and Richards, J., concurred.

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

KERRIGAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon an order sustaining a general demurrer to plaintiffs’ complaint.

*220 The plaintiffs herein were the defendants in a justice’s court action, and bring this suit in equity for the purpose of setting aside the judgment obtained against them therein, basing their right to this relief upon the ground that the proof of service of summons in said action fails to show that it was served upon each of them as defendants therein.

[1] Whatever merit there may be in this point as an abstract proposition of law it can avail the plaintiffs nothing in this proceeding, for two reasons: (1) That the complaint fails to allege that the defendants in the former suit were not in fact served with summons as required by section 410 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and (2) that they, as defendants in said justice’s court action, had a good defense on the merits thereof.

[2] A defective return of process duly served is not sufficient ground for equity to interfere. (Pico v. Sunol, 6 Cal. 294 ; Eichhoff v. Eichhoff, 107 Cal. 42, [48 Am. St. Rep. 110, 40 Pac. 24] ; 23 Cyc. 996.) And it is the established law in this state that a bill of equity must allege and show that the complainant has a good and meritorious defense to the action at law. (Burbridge v. Rauer, 146 Cal. 21, [79 Pac. 526] ; Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, [82 Pac. 327] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, [161 Pac. 1144]. See, also, Freeman on Judgments, sec. 498 ; 23 Cyc. 1031.)

Under these authorities it must be held that the equitable relief of setting aside a judgment obtained in a court of law will not be granted without an affirmative showing in the complaint that the complainant, as defendant in said action, has ! a good defense on the merits. It should have been made to appear in the complaint in this proceeding that a like judgment would in all probability not result from a new prosecution of the action at law.

The judgment is affirmed.

Waste, P. J., and Richards, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 P. 543, 40 Cal. App. 219, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/celiano-v-giordanengo-calctapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack