People v. Otto
THE PEOPLE v. WILLIAM H. OTTO
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Searls (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 — Searls
Searls, C. J.
This is an appeal by the people from a judgment in their favor for $1,769.31, and interest and costs.' In the complaint plaintiffs demand judgment for a further sum of $632.62, making an aggregate of $2,281.83.
After the answer of defendants was filed, plaintiffs moved, “upon all the papers on file in this action,” to strike out as sham and irrelevant the answer of defendants, and for judgment as by default on the pleadings in said action.
No order seems to have been made striking out the answer, but judgment was rendered in favor of the people and against defendants as above stated.
The case comes before us on an appeal from the judgment. There is no statement or bill of exceptions.
As the motion was based on all the papers on file in the case, and as the record contains only the judgment roll, non constat but there was something in the papers on file, and which are not a part of the judgment roll, which warranted the court in awarding judgment for the amount specified in such judgment.
The judgment is affirmed.
McKinstry, J., Paterson, J., and Temple, J., concurred.
Cited by
- Coffee-Rich, Inc. v. Fielder Civ. 38748 · 1972-09-19
- Dufour v. Henry J. Kaiser Co. Civ. 20354; Civ. 20355 · 1963-04-11
- Berg v. Investors Real Estate Loan Co. Civ. 19762 · 1962-09-26
- People v. Coit Ranch, Inc. Civ. 27 · 1962-05-23
- Carlton v. Castranova Civ. 24810 · 1961-02-24
- Heil v. Sawada Civ. 6376 · 1960-12-21
- Fairrington v. Dyke Water Co. L. A. 24501 · 1958-04-18
- Harper v. Markarian Civ. No. 4940 · 1955-03-24
- Callens v. County of Orange Civ. 5012 · 1954-11-30
- De Burgh v. De Burgh L. A. 21986 · 1952-11-25
- Griffith v. Kerrigan Civ. 8022 · 1952-03-07
- Hails v. Martz L. A. 19318 · 1946-08-27
- Hahn v. Curtis Civ. 7189 · 1946-03-04
- Los Angeles Brick & Clay Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles Civ. 14125 · 1943-09-16
- Selig Cahn, Inc. v. Alschuler Civ. No. 13443 · 1943-01-29
- Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Feliciano Civ. 2756 · 1941-06-30
- Hill v. Donnelly Civ. 11309 · 1941-02-15
- Katenkamp v. Union Realty Co. Civ. 11781; Civ. 11783 · 1940-01-18
- Austin v. Harry E. Jones, Inc. Civ. No. 10924 · 1939-01-13
- Vuich v. Smith Civ. No. 8499 · 1934-08-17
- Stephani v. Abbott Docket No. 4602. · 1934-03-23
- Inga v. Blum Docket No. 1056. · 1933-09-28
- Marxen v. Herron Docket No. 4730. · 1933-02-06
- Hollywood Cleaning & Pressing Co. v. Hollywood Laundry Service, Inc. Docket No. L.A. 12345. · 1932-12-28
- Reclamation Dist. No. 833 v. American F. Co. Docket No. Sac. 4134. · 1930-02-24
- Hanlon Drydock & Shipbuilding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Docket No. 6051. · 1928-05-28
- Huling v. Seccombe Docket No. 3393. · 1928-01-04
- Agmar v. Solomon Docket No. 6037. · 1927-11-25
- Hull v. Ray Docket No. 3182. · 1926-12-15
- Estate of Baird S. F. No. 10226. · 1924-02-16
- Los Angeles & Arizona Land Co. v. Marr L. A. No. 6541. · 1921-09-21
- Merchants National Bank v. Carmichael Civ. No. 2171. · 1920-12-31
- California Orange Co. v. Riverside Portland Cement Co. Civ. No. 3233. · 1920-12-22
- Johnstone v. Gloster Civ. No. 2158. · 1920-11-08
- Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court of Tulare Cty. Sac. No. 2983. · 1920-02-20
- Galbreath v. Hopkins Sac. No. 1773. · 1911-01-12
- California Development Co. v. New Liverpool Salt Co. No. 1,584 · 1909-08-02
- Drew v. Hicks No. 19,199 · 1894-01-25