Suydam v. Pitcher
4 Cal. 280
Opinion
Upon a re-argument, at this term, delivered the following opinion:
On the re-argnment of this cause, our attention has been particularly directed to the 68th section of the Practice Act, under which the authority of the Court below is said to be exercised.
After an examination of this section, we see no reason to change the opinion already given.
An appearance by attorney, at common law and by the express letter of our statute, amounts to an acknowledgment or waiver of service.
Such cases are not within the section referred to.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Suydam v. Pitcher, 4 Cal. 280 (Cal. 1854).
4 Cal. 280 (Suydam v. Pitcher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gagnon Co., Inc. v. Nevada Desert Inn
289 P.2d 466 (California Supreme Court, 1955)
People v. McAllister
102 P.2d 1072 (California Supreme Court, 1940)
Haverstick v. Southern Pacific Co.
37 P.2d 146 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Keyser v. Pollock
59 P. 87 (Utah Supreme Court, 1899)
Blyth & Fargo Co. v. Swenson
49 P. 1027 (Utah Supreme Court, 1897)
Nez Perces County v. Latah County
31 P. 800 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1892)
Daniels v. Daniels
12 Nev. 118 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1877)
Casement v. Ringgold
28 Cal. 335 (California Supreme Court, 1865)
Castro v. Richardson
25 Cal. 49 (California Supreme Court, 1864)
Sampson v. Ohleyer
22 Cal. 200 (California Supreme Court, 1863)
Shaw v. McGregor
8 Cal. 521 (California Supreme Court, 1857)