Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 Cal. 200

Logan v. Hillegass

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1860

California Supreme Court · decided 1860-07-01

The complaint, in substance, avers that defendant obtained judgment against plaintiff by default, without personal or other service of the summons and complaint; that no seal of Court is affixed to the summons, and that the Sheriff’s return on the summons is: “ I have executed the writ, by leaving with the within named defendant, Henry C. Logan, a copy of summons, with a certified copy of complaint.” Upon these averments, the complaint assumes the judgment to be void, and…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1916

7 state decisions

20186018701880189019001910decided

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 →

Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court

¶1Cope, J. concurring.

¶2The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment rendered against him by default in June, 1855, and bases his claim to the relief upon the absence of the seal of the District Court to the summons issued in the action in which the judgment was entered, the alleged defective certificate of the Sheriff of the service of the summons and copy of the complaint, and irregularities of the Clerk in entering the judgment. If, for any of these reasons, the judgment be absolutely void, as contended by counsel, the appellant has a perfect remedy, by application to the District Court to quash the execution. That Court can, at any time, arrest all process issued by its Clerk on judgments which are void. If the judgment in question be not absolutely void, and the defects alleged be mere irregularities, to be reached by motion before judgment, or on appeal, the complaint is insufficient. It does not aver that the plaintiff has ever paid the claim for the recovery of which the action was brought, or that he has any valid defense to the same. (See Chipman v. Bowman and Gregory v. Ford, decided at the October term, 1859, and Gibbons v. Scott et al., decided at the January term, 1860.)

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/16/cal/200 · .json · Public domain