O'Brien v. Shaw's Flat & Tuolomne Canal Co.
O'BRIEN v. SHAW'S FLAT AND TUOLUMNE CANAL CO.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Stephen J. Field (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 — Field
Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court Terry, C. J., and Baldwin, J.,concurring.
The defendants arc an incorporated company, and the judgment in the present case was taken by default. The return of the sheriff shows that he served the summons “upon James Street, one of the proprietors of the company.” This is not sufficient evidence of service to give the Court jurisdiction. It does not appear that Street was “ president, or head of the cor*344poration, or secretary, cashier, or managing agent thereof.” The summons might, with as much propriety, have been served upon any other stranger. (Practice Act, § 29; Aikin v. The Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Company, 6 Cal., 186.)
Judgment reversed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Aiken v. Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Co. · 1856-07-01