Miller v. Cortese

California Court of Appeal

Miller v. Cortese

211 P.2d 602, 94 Cal. App. 2d 848, 1949 Cal. App. LEXIS 1619

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 30, 1949

DocketCiv. No. 17156

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 P.2d 602 (Miller v. Cortese) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Cortese, 211 P.2d 602, 94 Cal. App. 2d 848, 1949 Cal. App. LEXIS 1619 (Cal. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

DORAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order setting aside a default.

Defendant was served with the complaint on August 31, 1948; default was entered September 16, 1948. Notice of motion to set aside the default was served November 10, 1948. Hearing on the motion was set for November 22d, continued to December 2d, on which last mentioned date it was granted.

It is contended on appeal that: “1. Respondent’s failure to file answer to appellant’s complaint within time permitted by law was not mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. 2. Respondent’s affidavit of merit is insufficient. 3. Granting of the motion to vacate entry of default and default judgment was an abuse of the Court’s discretion.”

The record reveals, as pointed out by respondent, that,

“On September 1, 1948, the respondent called at the home of M. H. Bershin, and discovered that Bershin and Córtese had previously been served with identical pleadings. This [849]*849respondent was informed by Bershin that an attorney, Louis Warren, had been retained to represent the three of them, to wit, Córtese, Bershin, and the respondent, Dinow. Bershin further stated that the necessary Answer had been filed; that the matter was now at a standstill until such time as it could be brought to trial; that this respondent would be kept fully informed in the matter.

“Through some misunderstanding, counsel, Louis Warren, had filed an Answer on behalf of Córtese and Bershin only. As a result, a default was entered against the respondent on September 17,1948 and default judgment on October 8,1948.”

There appears to have been no abuse of discretion on the part of the court and the affidavits in support of the motion are sufficient. It is well settled that a trial on the merits is favored.

The order is affirmed.

White, P. J., and Drapeau, J., concurred.

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

DORAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order setting aside a default.

Defendant was served with the complaint on August 31, 1948; default was entered September 16, 1948. Notice of motion to set aside the default was served November 10, 1948. Hearing on the motion was set for November 22d, continued to December 2d, on which last mentioned date it was granted.

It is contended on appeal that: “1. Respondent’s failure to file answer to appellant’s complaint within time permitted by law was not mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. 2. Respondent’s affidavit of merit is insufficient. 3. Granting of the motion to vacate entry of default and default judgment was an abuse of the Court’s discretion.”

The record reveals, as pointed out by respondent, that,

“On September 1, 1948, the respondent called at the home of M. H. Bershin, and discovered that Bershin and Córtese had previously been served with identical pleadings. This [849]*849respondent was informed by Bershin that an attorney, Louis Warren, had been retained to represent the three of them, to wit, Córtese, Bershin, and the respondent, Dinow. Bershin further stated that the necessary Answer had been filed; that the matter was now at a standstill until such time as it could be brought to trial; that this respondent would be kept fully informed in the matter.

“Through some misunderstanding, counsel, Louis Warren, had filed an Answer on behalf of Córtese and Bershin only. As a result, a default was entered against the respondent on September 17,1948 and default judgment on October 8,1948.”

There appears to have been no abuse of discretion on the part of the court and the affidavits in support of the motion are sufficient. It is well settled that a trial on the merits is favored.

The order is affirmed.

White, P. J., and Drapeau, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 P.2d 602, 94 Cal. App. 2d 848, 1949 Cal. App. LEXIS 1619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-cortese-calctapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack