Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

65 Cal. 387

Bailey v. Sloan

California Supreme Court

Decided July 18, 1884

California Supreme Court · decided 1884-07-18

The action was brought to recover the amount due on three promissory notes for the respective sums of $100, $159, and $269.97; and also for the sum of $50 due on an account for goods sold and delivered. The complaint contained four counts; each note and the account being alleged as a further and separate cause of action. The prayer of the complaint was for a judgment for $656, the aggregate of all the items, and interest on the notes according to the terms of each.

Relies on Dashiell v. Slingerland · Solomon v. Reese · Maxfield v. Johnson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-07-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 1942

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

601884189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

Sharpstein, J.

¶1The demurrer was properly overruled. The demand according to the ad damnum clause of the complaint, exclusive of interest, exceeds $300. The ad damnum clause in the complaint is the test of jurisdiction, (Maxfield v. Johnson, 30 Cal. 545; Solomon v. Reese, 34 Cal. 28; Sanborn v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County, 60 Cal. 425; Dashiell v. Slingerland, 60 Cal. 653.)

¶2Ho answer was filed, and the time within which the defendant was granted leave to answer having expired, the cleric was authorized to enter his default, and a judgment for the amount specified in the summons. (Code Civ. Proc. § 385.)

¶3As the appeal is from the judgment alone, we have nothing before us except the judgment roll in which notice of the overruling of his demurrer would not appear, even if such notice had been given. If none was given, and the defendant wished to avail himself of the omission, he should have moved in the court below to set aside the default and judgment on that ground, and if his motion had been denied, appealed from the order denying such motion. In that way alone could he have got the question which he now seeks to raise before this court.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

¶5Thornton, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.

¶6Hearing in Bank denied.

/65/cal/387 · .json · Public domain