Cunningham v. Warnekey

61 Cal. 507, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 653
California Supreme Court·Decided October 9, 1882·No. No. 8,039·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

The Court:

The affidavit of service of notice of appeal is as follows:

“ Daniel Brennan being duly sworn deposes and says: I am, and was at the time of service by mailage of the within copy notice of appeal, a white male citizen over the age of eighteen years, and competent to bé a witness in this action; that on the fifteenth day of August, 1881,1 se.rved the within copy notice of appeal by mailage on A. B. Ware, Esq., attorney for plaintiff, by leaving in the United States Postoffice in the city of Santa Rosa, county of Sonoma, and State of California, a copy of the within notice of appeal, directed to said A. B. Ware, Esq., at his place of business in said city of Santa Rosa, and county and State aforesaid, and paying the full postage price thereon and the same registered.
“ Daniel Brennan.
“ Subscribed,” etc.

The affidavit does not show where the affiant or where defendant (appellant) resided. The person making the service and the person served must reside, or have their offices in “different places ” to justify the service by mail. As between persons both of whom were in Santa Rosa, the service should have been personal. (C. C. P. 1012,1013.)

Appeal dismissed.

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

Cunningham v. Warnekey, 61 Cal. 507, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 653 (Cal. 1882).

61 Cal. 507 (Cunningham v. Warnekey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

West v. West
92 Cal. App. 3d 120 (California Court of Appeal, 1979)
Santana v. Salinas
54 P.R. 109 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1939)
Carlon v. Gray
52 P.2d 966 (California Court of Appeal, 1935)
Gascón v. Alvarez
28 P.R. 336 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1920)
Quintero v. Morales
19 P.R. 1120 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1913)
Linforth v. White
61 P. 910 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
Thompson v. Brannan
18 P. 783 (California Supreme Court, 1888)
Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Shepardson
18 P. 398 (California Supreme Court, 1888)
Murdock v. Clarke
14 P. 385 (California Supreme Court, 1887)