Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Cal. App. 502

129 P 599

Rose v. Lelande

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 3, 1912

California Court of Appeal · decided 1912-12-03

<p>Action Against Officer and Surety—Pleading—Insufficient Answer—Admissions—Mandamus.—The plaintiff in an action on a verified complaint against a defendant sued as a member of a board of public works, and against a corporation defendant, sued as surety on the other defendant’s official bond, is not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the entry of the default of such defendants, by the county clerk, on the ground that their answer is insufficient in not averring the character and relations of the defendants. The failure of the defendants to answer the verified complaint, in that regard, admitted those allegations to be true.</p> <p>Id.—Absence of Official Power of Clerk to Pass upon Insufficiency of Answer.—Conceding the answer to be defective, irregular or insufficient to constitute a defense, the clerk has no judicial power to pass thereon. The clerk, in entering a default, acts ministerially, and in no case is he warranted in making such entry where his authority so to do depends upon a determination of the sufficiency, either as to substance or form of a document on file purporting to constitute an answer to the complaint.</p> <p>Id.—Power of Court to Determine Sufficiency of Answer—Default for Want of Answer Stricken Out—The question as to the sufficiency of the answer was one for the court to determine, either upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or upon a motion to strike the answer from the files. Upon the granting of the latter motion, there being no answer on file, and the time for pleading to the complaint having expired, the clerk would be warranted in entering a default.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1912-12-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently December 1985

15 state decisions

6019121920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

SHAW, J.

¶1 This is an ex parte application for an alternative writ of mandate directed to H. J. Lelande, county clerk and ex officio clerk of the superior court of Los Angeles County, commanding him to enter the default of defendants in a certain action pending in said superior court, wherein petitioner is plaintiff and Adna R. Chaffee, sued as a member of the board of public works of the city of Los Angeles, and his official surety, alleged to be a corporation, are defendants, or show cause for his failure so to do.

¶2 The petition shows that defendants, within due time, filed their answer to the complaint. Petitioner, however, contends that the purported answer is insufficient for the reason that it is not made to appear therein that Chaffee is a member of the board of public works, or that his codefendant is a corporation. The complaint wherein these facts are alleged is verified, and since the answer does not deny them, they are deemed admitted. Moreover, conceding the answer to be defective, irregular, or insufficient to constitute a defense, the clerk possesses no judicial power to pass thereon. The question as to the sufficiency of the answer was one for the court to determine upon a motion for judgment upon the pleadings, or motion to strike the purported answer from the files, upon the granting of which latter motion, there being no answer on file and the time for pleading to the complaint having expired, the clerk would be warranted in entering a default. The clerk in entering a default acts ministerially, and in no case is he *504 warranted in making such entry where his authority so to do depends upon a determination of the sufficiency, either as to the substance or form, of a document on file purporting to constitute an answer to the complaint.

¶3 The application is wholly without merit and is, therefore, denied. *

¶4 Allen, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

/20/calapp/502 · .json · Public domain