Wall v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Wall v. Superior Court

292 P. 134, 48 Cal. App. 564, 1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 301

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 19, 1920

DocketCiv. No. 3367.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 P. 134 (Wall v. Superior Court) 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

Wall v. Superior Court, 292 P. 134, 48 Cal. App. 564, 1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 301 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLER, J.

By this proceeding petitioner seeks to review the action of the superior court of Riverside County. On August 19, 1919, a complaint was filed in that court naming John J. Wall as a defendant. [1] Summons was served on defendant Wall personally in Riverside County on April 28, 1920. . On May 5, 1920, defendant Wall gave notice of his special appearance for the sole purpose of moving to quash the service of summons, and filed therewith notice of motion to set aside the service of summons on the ground that he was a nonresident of the state of California, and, at the time of the -service of summons on him, was hut temporarily in this state for the purpose of attending the trial of a civil action to which he was a party. The notice of motion was accompanied by an affidavit setting forth the circumstances of his visit to California, as above indicated. At the same time Wall served and filed a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of his person, in that it appeared upon the face of the complaint that he was a resident of the state of Nevada. On May 18th the court, after argument, granted the motion to quash the . service of summons and sustained the demurrer to the complaint.

That by filing the demurrer to the complaint defendant Wall submitted his person to the jurisdiction of the court there can be no doubt, and the court erred in its action. (McDonald v. Agnew, 122 Cal. 448, [55 Pac. 125]; Olcese v. Justice’s Court, 156 Cal. 82, [103 Pac. 317] ; American Law Book Co. v. Superior Court, 164.Cal. 327, [128 Pac. 921].) [2] But petitioner cannot take advantage of this error by certiorari, for an adequate remedy exists aside from this proceeding. Judgment might have been entered on the demurrer, and an appeal would lie from such judgment.

Writ discharged.

Finlayson, P. J., and Thomas, J., concurred.

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

WELLER, J.

By this proceeding petitioner seeks to review the action of the superior court of Riverside County. On August 19, 1919, a complaint was filed in that court naming John J. Wall as a defendant. [1] Summons was served on defendant Wall personally in Riverside County on April 28, 1920. . On May 5, 1920, defendant Wall gave notice of his special appearance for the sole purpose of moving to quash the service of summons, and filed therewith notice of motion to set aside the service of summons on the ground that he was a nonresident of the state of California, and, at the time of the -service of summons on him, was hut temporarily in this state for the purpose of attending the trial of a civil action to which he was a party. The notice of motion was accompanied by an affidavit setting forth the circumstances of his visit to California, as above indicated. At the same time Wall served and filed a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of his person, in that it appeared upon the face of the complaint that he was a resident of the state of Nevada. On May 18th the court, after argument, granted the motion to quash the . service of summons and sustained the demurrer to the complaint.

That by filing the demurrer to the complaint defendant Wall submitted his person to the jurisdiction of the court there can be no doubt, and the court erred in its action. (McDonald v. Agnew, 122 Cal. 448, [55 Pac. 125]; Olcese v. Justice’s Court, 156 Cal. 82, [103 Pac. 317] ; American Law Book Co. v. Superior Court, 164.Cal. 327, [128 Pac. 921].) [2] But petitioner cannot take advantage of this error by certiorari, for an adequate remedy exists aside from this proceeding. Judgment might have been entered on the demurrer, and an appeal would lie from such judgment.

Writ discharged.

Finlayson, P. J., and Thomas, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 P. 134, 48 Cal. App. 564, 1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wall-v-superior-court-calctapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack