Nelsen v. Joseph

California Court of Appeal

Nelsen v. Joseph

248 P. 754, 78 Cal. App. 743, 1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 355

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 20, 1926

DocketDocket No. 5444.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 248 P. 754 (Nelsen v. Joseph) 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

Nelsen v. Joseph, 248 P. 754, 78 Cal. App. 743, 1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 355 (Cal. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

CASHIN, J.

A judgment was entered- against defendant after default and the denial -of a motion to set the default aside on the ground that the summons had not been served. The appeal is from the judgment and presents for review the action of the court in denying the motion.

The summons issued and returned was regular in form and was shown by the affidavit attached to have been served by a qualified person upon appellant personally in the county in which the action was pending by delivery to the latter of a copy of the summons to which was attached a copy of the complaint in the action. While the evidence presented on the motion was conflicting, the conclusions of 'the trial court that service was .made as stated in the affidavit of service finds support therefrom, and cannot be disturbed on appeal (Doak v. Bruson, 152 Cal. 17 [91 Pac. 1001]; Flood v. Goldstein, 158 Cal. 247 [110 Pac. 916]; Patterson v. Keeney, 165 Cal. 465 [Ann. Cas. 1914D, 232, 132 Pac. 1043]).

No other question being raised by the appeal, the judgment is affirmed.

Tyler, P. J., and Knight, J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on September 16, 1926.

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

CASHIN, J.

A judgment was entered- against defendant after default and the denial -of a motion to set the default aside on the ground that the summons had not been served. The appeal is from the judgment and presents for review the action of the court in denying the motion.

The summons issued and returned was regular in form and was shown by the affidavit attached to have been served by a qualified person upon appellant personally in the county in which the action was pending by delivery to the latter of a copy of the summons to which was attached a copy of the complaint in the action. While the evidence presented on the motion was conflicting, the conclusions of 'the trial court that service was .made as stated in the affidavit of service finds support therefrom, and cannot be disturbed on appeal (Doak v. Bruson, 152 Cal. 17 [91 Pac. 1001]; Flood v. Goldstein, 158 Cal. 247 [110 Pac. 916]; Patterson v. Keeney, 165 Cal. 465 [Ann. Cas. 1914D, 232, 132 Pac. 1043]).

No other question being raised by the appeal, the judgment is affirmed.

Tyler, P. J., and Knight, J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on September 16, 1926.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 P. 754, 78 Cal. App. 743, 1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelsen-v-joseph-calctapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack