Marks v. Keenan

California Supreme Court

Marks v. Keenan

82 P. 772, 148 Cal. 161, 1905 Cal. LEXIS 652

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 23, 1905

DocketS.F. No. 3482.

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 82 P. 772 (Marks v. Keenan) 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

Marks v. Keenan, 82 P. 772, 148 Cal. 161, 1905 Cal. LEXIS 652 (Cal. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order dismissing the action for want of prosecution. The general rule is that the disposition of a motion to dismiss an action for want of prosecution rests in the discretion of the trial court, and that its action on such motion will not be disturbed here unless such discretion has been grossly abnsed. We see no such abuse of discretion in this case. After the filing of the complaint and the issuing of the summons nothing was done towards serving the summons until more than a year had elapsed. During that time the summons was not given to the sheriff, nor was any other person employed to serve it. The defendant during this time was a resident of San Francisco, where the action was commenced, the place of his residence being in the city directory; and there seems to have been no good reason why he was not served. The service was not made on him until a year and four months after the commencement of the action and the issuance of the summons. Under these circumstances we do not feel called *162 upon to disturb the order appealed from. In Ferris v. Wood, 144 Cal. 426, [77 Pac. 1037], cited by appellant, there were special circumstances which were very different from those appearing in the case at bar.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

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

THE COURT.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order dismissing the action for want of prosecution. The general rule is that the disposition of a motion to dismiss an action for want of prosecution rests in the discretion of the trial court, and that its action on such motion will not be disturbed here unless such discretion has been grossly abnsed. We see no such abuse of discretion in this case. After the filing of the complaint and the issuing of the summons nothing was done towards serving the summons until more than a year had elapsed. During that time the summons was not given to the sheriff, nor was any other person employed to serve it. The defendant during this time was a resident of San Francisco, where the action was commenced, the place of his residence being in the city directory; and there seems to have been no good reason why he was not served. The service was not made on him until a year and four months after the commencement of the action and the issuance of the summons. Under these circumstances we do not feel called *162 upon to disturb the order appealed from. In Ferris v. Wood, 144 Cal. 426, [77 Pac. 1037], cited by appellant, there were special circumstances which were very different from those appearing in the case at bar.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 P. 772, 148 Cal. 161, 1905 Cal. LEXIS 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marks-v-keenan-cal-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack