Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

65 Cal. 320

Farrington v. Brown

California Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1885

California Supreme Court · decided 1885-06-04

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Decided 1885-06-04

The Court.

¶1The appeal is from a judgment rendered on failure of plaintiff to amend her complaint, after an order of court sustaining a demurrer thereto, on the ground that the complaint does not state facts constituting a cause of action.

¶2The action is brought to enjoin the defendant Brown, a constable, from selling certain real property of plaintiff under execution, issued upon a judgment rendered and entered by a justice of the peace, in an action wherein plaintiff was defendant, and the present defendant, Beiso, was plaintiff.

¶3There is no averment in the complaint herein that copy of the original complaint filed in the Justices’ Court, as well as copy of summons, was not served on the present plaintiff, nor that copy of the amended complaint in the action in the Justices’ Court was not served on plaintiff, or on Patrick Farrington (first named as a defendant in that action in the amended complaint), nor even that the plaintiff or Patrick did not appear and answer such amended complaint. For aught that appears in the present complaint, the cause was tried in the Justices’ Court, upon the issues made by the amended complaint and the answers thereto of Patrick Farrington and Rosanna Farrington—the plaintiffs herein.

¶4This possibility, or presumption, is not removed by the statement in the present complaint that the plaintiff Rosanna had *321no “ knowledge” of the justice’s judgment for more than thirty days after its rendition. There is no legal presumption that she was personally present at the trial, or when the justice rendered or entered his judgment.

¶5Judgment affirmed. •. ,

/65/cal/320 · .json · Public domain