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

10 Cal. 343
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1858·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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] poration, 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

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

10 Cal. 343 (O'Brien v. Shaw's Flat & Tuolomne Canal Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)