Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

15 Cal. 284

Gibbons v. Scott

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1860

California Supreme Court · decided 1860-07-01

The original action was by defendants, Scott & Vantine, against Gibbons & Glynn. The return of the Sheriff shows personal service on Gibbons, plaintiff here; and an attorney having been appointed to represent Glynn, who had become a non-resident of the State, in due time final judgment by default was entered up against defendants.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1952

6 state decisions

201860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

¶1Field, C. J. concurring.

¶2This is a suit in equity, to set aside a judgment of the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District. The judgment was rendered in September, 1853, and the record shows that there was a personal service of the summons, and a copy of the complaint. The plaintiff alleges that no such service was in fact ever made, and that he had no notice of the proceedings until long after the rendition of the judgment. He further alleges that the officer who certified to the service, and the sureties upon his official bond, are insolvent. So far, the case falls exactly within the rule laid down in Gregory v. Ford, decided at the October T. 1859; but the plaintiff goes further, and alleges that he had a valid defense to the action, of which he claims that in equity and justice he should still be permitted to avail himself. But the allegations in relation to this defense are insufficient. The defense is founded upon an executory agreement, by the terms of which certain things were to be done by the plaintiff, and in consideration thereof, he was to be relieved from the debt for which the action was brought. It is not alleged that any of these things were performed by him, or that he ever offered, or was, or has been, at any time, ready or willing to perform the same.

¶3We have no right to reverse the judgment for the purpose of affording the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint. He did not offer to amend in the Court below, and there is nothing in the record to justify a reversal.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/15/cal/284 · .json · Public domain