Morris v. Marye

Cal. District Court

Morris v. Marye

1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 97

DecidedJune 15, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 97 (Morris v. Marye) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California District Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morris v. Marye, 1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 97 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Norton, J.

delivered the verbal opinion of the Court denying the motion. He said that the motion, if based upon the ground that the default was entered prematurely, must be denied, as the Court had lost jurisdiction by the lapse of the term at which the decree was taken. He thought, that taking the default too soon would create irregularity in the judgment.

If the motion was based on the right of the defendant, upon whom personal service had not been obtained, to answer within six months, as provided by sec. 68 of Prac. Act, he held that the affidavit should show that the defendant had a meritorious defense, as the defendant tinder the section referred to could only be permitted to answer to the merits. He thought that the proper practice in all such cases was to accompany the application with an answer showing a meritorious defense.

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

Norton, J.

delivered the verbal opinion of the Court denying the motion. He said that the motion, if based upon the ground that the default was entered prematurely, must be denied, as the Court had lost jurisdiction by the lapse of the term at which the decree was taken. He thought, that taking the default too soon would create irregularity in the judgment.

If the motion was based on the right of the defendant, upon whom personal service had not been obtained, to answer within six months, as provided by sec. 68 of Prac. Act, he held that the affidavit should show that the defendant had a meritorious defense, as the defendant tinder the section referred to could only be permitted to answer to the merits. He thought that the proper practice in all such cases was to accompany the application with an answer showing a meritorious defense.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-marye-caldistct-1857.