O'Brien v. Shaw's Flat & Tuolomne Canal Co.

10 Cal. 343
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 10 Cal. 343 (O'Brien v. Shaw's Flat & Tuolomne Canal Co.) 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
O'Brien v. Shaw's Flat & Tuolomne Canal Co., 10 Cal. 343 (Cal. 1858).

Opinion

Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court

Terry, C. J., and Baldwin, J.,concurring.

The defendants arc an incorporated company, and the judgment in the present case was taken by default. The return of the sheriff shows that he served the summons “upon James Street, one of the proprietors of the company.” This is not sufficient evidence of service to give the Court jurisdiction. It does not appear that Street was “ president, or head of the cor[344]*344poration, or secretary, cashier, or managing agent thereof.” The summons might, with as much propriety, have been served upon any other stranger. (Practice Act, § 29; Aikin v. The Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Company, 6 Cal., 186.)

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Karns v. State Bank & Trust Co.
31 Nev. 170 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1909)
Great West Min. Co. v. Woodmas of Alston Min. Co.
12 Colo. 46 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1888)
Waco Lodge No. 70 v. Wheeler
59 Tex. 554 (Texas Supreme Court, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Cal. 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-shaws-flat-tuolomne-canal-co-cal-1858.