Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

60 Cal. 10

Howard v. Galloway

California Supreme Court

Decided January 19, 1882

California Supreme Court · decided 1882-01-19

Appeal Tby defendant Annie B. Galloway, and Annie B-Galloway, executrix of J. W. Galloway, deceased, from a judgment for the plaintiff in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Hunt, J.

Relies on Hallock v. Jaudin · Guy v. Ide · Maynard v. MacCrellish

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-01-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently November 1986 · most notably Luz v. Lopes (1960), Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co. (1915)

16 state decisions

4018821890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

Thornton, J.:

¶1The judgment in this case against Annie B. Galloway, in her own proper person, and against her as executrix of Joseph Galloway, deceased, was by default. She (the only party appealing) makes the point that there is no proof of service of summons on her in either capacity, as above stated, and therefore the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction. On examination of the proof of service, it appears to be clearly defective. The service was not made by the Sheriff, and the affidavit does not state that the person making the service was over eighteen years of age at the time of service, as required by statute. (C. C. P., § 410.) On such proof, the Court below could not render a judgment by default. (Maynard v. McCrellish, 57 Cal. 355.) The defendant had a right, then, to appeal from such a judgment without moving to set aside the default, or other proceedings, in the Court below. (Hallock v. Jaudin, 34 Cal. 172.) We consider Guy v. Ide, 6 Cal. 99, and the cases following it, virtually overruled in Hallock v. Jaudin, above cited, where the question is fully discussed. The defendant had a right to appeal from the judgment, or to move in the Court below. Both remedies are given, and the defendant had a right to avail herself of either, and probably of both.

¶2The judgment is erroneous as to the defendant above named. And as to her in both capacities in which she was sued, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

¶3Myrick and Sharpstein, JJ., concurred.

/60/cal/10 · .json · Public domain