Hancock v. Bowman

Decided July 1, 1874

California Supreme Court · decided 1874-07-01

Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. 1 Action to enforce a lien for work done in improving a street in San Francisco, commenced August 1, 1870. The resolution of intention to improve the street was passed May 3, 18G9. The name of the plaintiff’s attorney was printed at the bottom of the complaint instead of being written, and the complaint was printed, except blanks, in which there was writing. The defendants moved the Court to strike out the judgment-roll, because the name of the plaintiff’s attorney was not written, but printed at the end of the complaint, and because the judgment was against both defendants, while only one of them was served with summons. The Court below denied the motion. The defendants appealed. The-other facts are stated in the opinion.

Relies on People of San Francisco v. Doe

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2007

8 state decisions

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 →

By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

¶1The complaint alleges that both defendants are owners of the lot against which it is sought to enforce the assessment. The default of Bowman was entered, but the summons was never served on Bofer, nor was there any attempt to take his default. Wet the decree provides for the sale of the lot, and that both defendants—and all persons claiming under them—be forever barred and foreclosed from asserting any right or title in the premises, etc. The statute gives no authority for a decree enforcing the lien, in the absence of Bofer, one of the parties in interest. (People v. Doe, 48 Cal. 560.)

¶2The motion to “strike out” the judgment-roll was properly denied.

¶3Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.

¶4Mr. Justice Rhodes did not express an opinion.