People v. O'Connell

23 Cal. 281
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1863
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 23 Cal. 281 (People v. O'Connell) 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
People v. O'Connell, 23 Cal. 281 (Cal. 1863).

Opinion

Crocker, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court—Horton, J. concurring.

This is an appeal from an order setting aside a judgment by default, entered in an action for delinquent taxes. The judgment was rendered on the twenty-fifth day of March, 1862, against the defendant O’Connell and the real estate described in the complaint, for the amount of taxes, per eentage, and costs. The record shows that the summons was duly served on the defendant O’Connell and the real estate in the manner prescribed by the statute, on the thirtieth day of January, 1862, and that defaults were duly entered on the seventeenth day of February and the twenty-fifth day of March. On the ninth day of June, 1862, the defendants, without any affidavit or other showing, moved the Court to vacate the judgment, which was granted, and an order was entered accordingly, from which the plaintiffs appeal.

Sec. 68 of the Practice Act authorizes the Court, “ upon such terms as may be just, and upon payment of costs, to relieve any party or his legal representatives from a judgment, order, or other proceeding taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” The order itself is erroneous, in not imposing the payment of costs, as a condition of setting aside the judgment. But the Court also erred in making the order in the absence of any showing or proof on the part of the defendant, that the judgment was entered through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect on his part. The facts should be made to appear by affidavit, or other proper proof, showing that the case is one provided for by said section to authorize the Court to make the order.

The order is reversed.

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

Related

Stub v. Harrison
96 P.2d 979 (California Court of Appeal, 1939)
Jacobsmeyer v. Superior Court
22 P.2d 253 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Hannah v. Wilson Lumber Co.
114 S.E. 506 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1922)
Kinkead v. Moriarty
136 N.W. 101 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1912)
Erpenbach v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
67 N.W. 606 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1896)
Heermanr v. Sawyer
48 Cal. 562 (California Supreme Court, 1874)
Bailey v. Taaffe
29 Cal. 422 (California Supreme Court, 1866)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 Cal. 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oconnell-cal-1863.