Pico v. Carillo
PICO v. CARILLO
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William J. Murray, Jr. (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 — Murray
Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, J., concurring.
The order of the Court below, setting aside a default, and judgment entered during vacation, was regular and correct, inasmuch as there had been no service of summons upon the defendants.
This proceeding is expressly warranted by the sixty-eighth Section of the Practice Act, and, in a case where there has been no service whatever, it is not necessary to file a bill in chancery to vacate the judgment; but it may be set aside or re-opened, on motion, within the time allowed by law.
Although the “ want of proper legal service ” was the ground of the defendants’ motion in the Court below, the record shows that there was, in fact, no service whatever.
•Judgment affirmed.