Lander v. Flemming

47 Cal. 614
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1874·No. No. 3,801·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

By the Court:

1. The notice of appearance served on the plaintiff— “now comes the above-named defendant, and appears in the said action for the sole purpose of making a motion to quash the summons in, and dismiss, said action ’’—was a sufficient appearance to entitle the defendant to be heard upon the motion.

2. The facts appearing of record in the Court below, viz: that the complaint was filed- and the summons issued in October, 1870, and that the summons was not served until January, 1873—made a prima facie case of lack of diligence upon the part of the plaintiff in the prosecution of the action, - and which it was his duty to overcome, at the hearing of the motion, by showing the circumstances, if any, to excuse his apparent tardiness in pursuing the defendant. He, however, made no attempt in this direction, and we think that the action was properly dismissed.

Judgment affirmed. Bemittitur forthwith.

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

Lander v. Flemming, 47 Cal. 614 (Cal. 1874).

47 Cal. 614 (Lander v. Flemming) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

California Dental Assn. v. American Dental Assn.
590 P.2d 401 (California Supreme Court, 1979)
Werner Piano Co. v. Baker
207 P. 588 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1922)
Wisnom v. McCarthy
292 P. 337 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Estate of Chavier v. Estate of Giráldez
15 P.R. 145 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1909)
Luke v. Bennion
106 P. 712 (Utah Supreme Court, 1908)
Ferris v. Wood
77 P. 1037 (California Supreme Court, 1904)
Hassey v. S. San Francisco Homestead & R.R. Ass'n
36 P. 945 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Murray v. Gleeson
35 P. 88 (California Supreme Court, 1893)