Herman v. Pacific Jute Manufacturing Co.

California Supreme Court

Herman v. Pacific Jute Manufacturing Co.

63 P. 344, 131 Cal. 210, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 764

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 29, 1900

DocketS.F. No. 1564.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 63 P. 344 (Herman v. Pacific Jute Manufacturing Co.) 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

Herman v. Pacific Jute Manufacturing Co., 63 P. 344, 131 Cal. 210, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 764 (Cal. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Appeal from a judgment dismissing the case for failure of prosecution.

The suit was brought by the plaintiff as assignee to recover the amount due on a note made to plaintiff’s assignor by the defendant April 20, 1881. The sole issue raised by the answer was as to 'the plaintiff’s ownership of the note. The motion was made October, 1897, on the “records, files, and entries” in the case; from, which it appears that the complaint was filed June 6th, and the answer October 31, 1883. From the affidavit of the plaintiff—besides matter in excuse of delay, which *211 need not be passed on—it appears in effect that the defendant had no defense to the action, and that the answer was a sham or false answer, known to he such to the defendant and its attorneys; and that it was in fact filed under a resolution of the board of directors (which is set out in the affidavit), referring to a letter of its attorneys advising that the case be allowed to go by default, but instructing him to file the answer. The attorneys referred to are the same that now represent the defendant. There was no affidavit in rebuttal.

Without discussing other questions raised by appellant, it is sufficient to say that, conceding the power of a court to dismiss a case for laches, there was an abuse of discretion in the case at bar in exercising that power in favor of a defendant who admittedly has no defense and has filed a sham answer for purposes of delay.

The judgment appealed from is reversed.

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

THE COURT.

Appeal from a judgment dismissing the case for failure of prosecution.

The suit was brought by the plaintiff as assignee to recover the amount due on a note made to plaintiff’s assignor by the defendant April 20, 1881. The sole issue raised by the answer was as to 'the plaintiff’s ownership of the note. The motion was made October, 1897, on the “records, files, and entries” in the case; from, which it appears that the complaint was filed June 6th, and the answer October 31, 1883. From the affidavit of the plaintiff—besides matter in excuse of delay, which *211 need not be passed on—it appears in effect that the defendant had no defense to the action, and that the answer was a sham or false answer, known to he such to the defendant and its attorneys; and that it was in fact filed under a resolution of the board of directors (which is set out in the affidavit), referring to a letter of its attorneys advising that the case be allowed to go by default, but instructing him to file the answer. The attorneys referred to are the same that now represent the defendant. There was no affidavit in rebuttal.

Without discussing other questions raised by appellant, it is sufficient to say that, conceding the power of a court to dismiss a case for laches, there was an abuse of discretion in the case at bar in exercising that power in favor of a defendant who admittedly has no defense and has filed a sham answer for purposes of delay.

The judgment appealed from is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 P. 344, 131 Cal. 210, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herman-v-pacific-jute-manufacturing-co-cal-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack