Misch v. Mayhew
MAYER MISCH v. H. A. MAYHEW
- Area
- civil
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
By the Court:
The judgment of the court below is erroneous. The language of section 1116 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which fixes the time when the list of alleged illegal voters shall be served, is equivalent to a requirement that the opposite party shall have three days’ notice of the illegal votes which the party serving the list expects to prove at the trial. The case is, therefore, covered by section 12 of the same code, and a list served on the seventh of December could properly be relied upon and proven at the trial on the tenth of December.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded, and the County Court is directed to retry the issues made by the statement of the contestant and the answer of defendant thereto.
Cited by
- People v. Superior Court (Finch) A041551 · 1988-05-10
- People v. Harvey A035248 · 1987-07-16
- Petition of Los Angeles Trust Co. L.A. No. 2585. · 1910-11-19
- In re L.A. Tr. Co. L. A. No. 2585 · 1910-11-19
- Reclamation District No. 765 v. McPhee Civ. No. 639. · 1910-05-09
- Cosgriff v. Bd. of Election Commr's of S.F. L.A. No. 1982. · 1907-06-19
- Bank of Lemoore v. Fulgham Sac. No. 1338. · 1907-05-13
- Hannah v. Green Sac. No. 1163. · 1904-04-12
- Bellmer v. Blessington Sac. No. 843. · 1902-03-10
- Dingley v. McDonald S. F. No. 1411 · 1899-03-24
- Bates v. Howard No. 15481 · 1894-12-22
- In re Difference & Controversy between E. M. Derby & Co. & City of Modesto No. 18379 · 1894-11-23
- Foreman v. Boyle No. 13764 · 1891-03-10