Goldstone v. Sperling

California Supreme Court

Goldstone v. Sperling

39 Cal. 447

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1870

DocketNo. 2,261

StatusPublished

This text of 39 Cal. 447 (Goldstone v. Sperling) 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

Goldstone v. Sperling, 39 Cal. 447 (Cal. 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

Rhodes, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The defendant was notified by his attorney, that unless his fees were paid, he would not further conduct the defense to the action; and the fees not being paid, he gave no further attention to the case. The defendant neither retained another attorney nor appeared in the action in person. This was gross negligence on his part, and he was not entitled to a new trial, on the ground that he was surprised by the nonattendance of his attorney, when the cause was called for trial.

Order reversed and cause remanded.

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

Rhodes, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The defendant was notified by his attorney, that unless his fees were paid, he would not further conduct the defense to the action; and the fees not being paid, he gave no further attention to the case. The defendant neither retained another attorney nor appeared in the action in person. This was gross negligence on his part, and he was not entitled to a new trial, on the ground that he was surprised by the nonattendance of his attorney, when the cause was called for trial.

Order reversed and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Cal. 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstone-v-sperling-cal-1870.