Vernon v. Deesy

127 Cal. App. 313
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedNovember 2, 1932
DocketCiv. No. 7505
StatusPublished

This text of 127 Cal. App. 313 (Vernon v. Deesy) 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
Vernon v. Deesy, 127 Cal. App. 313 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Opinion

HOUSER, J.

This is an appeal from a default judgment and from an order by which a motion to vacate said judgment was denied.

Prom the record herein it appears that the notice of motion to vacate the judgment contained no statement of the grounds thereof other than that it would be made “upon the grounds and for the reasons set forth in affidavit attached hereto”. The essential-facts stated in such affidavit were nearly all controverted by counter-affidavits. Nor was any affidavit of merits, or “copy of the answer”, as provided by section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, presented by the defendant to the court in connection with the said motion. In such a situation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the premises. (County of Los Angeles v. Lewis, 179 Cal. 398 [177 Pac. 154] ; La Bonte & Ransom Co. v. Scellars, 90 Cal. App. 183 [265 Pac. 550] ; Bailiff v. Hildebrandt, 47 Cal. App. 564 [191 Pac. 42].)

The judgment and the order from which the appeal is taken are affirmed.

■ Conrey, P. J., and York, J., concurred.

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

Related

La Bonte Ransom Co., Inc. v. Scellars
265 P. 550 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
Bailiff v. Hildebrandt
191 P. 42 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
County of Los Angeles v. Lewis
177 P. 154 (California Supreme Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 Cal. App. 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vernon-v-deesy-calctapp-1932.