Aiken v. Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Co.
AIKEN v. THE QUARTZ ROCK MARIPOSA GOLD MINING COMPANY
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Lawrence F. Terry (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Terry
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Terry.
Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
This was an action against a corporation, by its corporate name. The sheriff's return shows that the summons was served on “ defendant, Waddell, yho was in possession of the property;” the name of Waddell is not mentioned in the complaint, and it does not appear how he became a defendant, or of what property he was in possession.
The 29th section of the Practice Act provides that “ if the suit be against a corporation, the summons shall be served on the president, secretary, cashier, or managing agent thereof.” As Waddell was not shown to be one of the officers named, the judgment by default was *187improperly entered, and is reversed with costs, and cause remanded for further proceedings.
Cited by
- Earl W. Schott, Inc. v. Kalar F017514 · 1993-11-30
- O'Brien v. Shaw's Flat & Tuolomne Canal Co. · 1858-07-01