Hestres v. Clements
21 Cal. 425
Opinion
Norton, J. concurring.
The judgment in this case must be reversed for irregularity in the proceedings. When the judgment was entered there was a demurrer on file which had not been disposed of. Two of the defendants demurred separately, and the record shows that but one of the demurrers was acted upon. The other was filed after a default had been taken, but the attorneys for the plaintiffs accepted service of it, thereby waiving the default.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hestres v. Clements, 21 Cal. 425 (Cal. 1863).
21 Cal. 425 (Hestres v. Clements) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
338 South Avenue 16 v. Meyer CA2/5
California Court of Appeal, 2024
Brown v. Pacific Telephone & Telelegraph Co.
105 Cal. App. 3d 482 (California Court of Appeal, 1980)
Oil Tool Exchange, Inc. v. Schuh
153 P.2d 976 (California Court of Appeal, 1944)
Cuddahy v. Gragg
189 P. 721 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Davidson v. Graham
144 P. 147 (California Court of Appeal, 1914)
Cutler v. Haycock
90 P. 897 (Utah Supreme Court, 1907)
Sawtelle v. Muncy
48 P. 387 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Nagle v. Wakey
43 N.E. 1079 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1896)
In re McIntire Estate
1 Alaska 73 (D. Alaska, 1894)
Payne v. Davis
2 Mont. 381 (Montana Supreme Court, 1876)
Polack v. McGrath
32 Cal. 15 (California Supreme Court, 1867)
Calderwood v. Tevis
23 Cal. 335 (California Supreme Court, 1863)