Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

173 Cal. 800

161 P 1144

Matson v. John Batto & Sons

California Supreme Court

Decided December 13, 1916

California Supreme Court · decided 1916-12-13

<p>Injunction—Default Judgment—Insufficient Service of Summons. An injunction will not be granted to restrain the enforcement of a default judgment, on the ground that it had been rendered upon an insufficient service of summons, in the absence of an allegation that the plaintiff has or ever had any defense on the merits to the action in which the judgment was rendered, or that it was not in fact just.</p>

Relies on Parsons v. Weis · Collins v. Scott · Gregory v. Ford

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1916-12-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 1967

15 state decisions

60191619201930194019501960decided

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 →

SLOSS, J.

¶1 The defendant corporation obtained a default judgment against plaintiff in a justice’s court. The plaintiff, *801 claiming that the default and judgment had been rendered upon an insufficient service of summons, brought this action to obtain an injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing said judgment. The defendant’s demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and judgment was entered, granting the plaintiff the relief demanded. The defendant appeals from the judgment.

¶2 The complaint fails to allege that the plaintiff has or ever had any defense on the merits to the action in the justice’s court, or that the judgment there given was not in fact just. Without regard to other points made, this alone is a complete obstacle to the granting of equitable relief. (Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138, [73 Am. Dec. 639] ; Gibbons v. Scott, 15 Cal. 284; Logan v. Hillegass, 16 Cal. 200; Peterson v. Weissbein, 65 Cal. 42, [2 Pac. 730]; Harnish v. Bramer, 71 Cal. 155, [11 Pac. 888]; Collins v. Scott, 100 Cal. 446, 452, [34 Pac. 1085]; Eldred v. White, 102 Cal. 600, [36 Pac. 944]; Parson v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417, [77 Pac. 1007]; Burbridge v. Rauer, 146 Cal. 21, [79 Pac. 526]; Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, [82 Pac. 327].)

¶3 The judgment is reversed.

¶4 Shaw, J., Melvin, J., Henshaw, J., Lorigan, J., Lawlor, J., and Angellotti, C. J., concurred.

/173/cal/800 · .json · Public domain