From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Shepardson

Supreme Court of California
May 31, 1888
76 Cal. 376 (Cal. 1888)

Opinion

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Colusa County.

Motion to dismiss appeal. The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendants appealed. The affidavit of the service of the notice of appeal was made by the attorney for the defendants, and is as follows:

         " State of California,

         County of Colusa.

         ss .

         " D. Shepardson, one of the defendants in the case of the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Dudley Shepardson and Winnie Shepardson, No. 1084, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he alleges and believes that he has served a copy of the notice of appeal herein filed on the twenty-sixth day of October, 1887, at thirty minutes past ten o'clock, a. m., on Charles N. Fox, the attorney for the plaintiff in the above-entitled action, by depositing the same in the post-office at Colusa, Colusa County, California, addressed to the said Charles N. Fox at his office in San Francisco, California, viz., 530 California Street, postage prepaid.

         (Signed)

         " D. Shepardson."

         COUNSEL:

         Shepardson & Moore, Joe Hamilton, and George W. Hamilton, for Appellants.

          C. N. Fox, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: In Bank. Searls, C. J. Sharpstein, J., Paterson, J., McKinstry, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          SEARLS, Judge

[18 P. 399] This is a motion to dismiss an appeal, and must be granted for the following reasons:

         1. The affidavit of service of the notice of appeal does not state positively its service, but only that the affiant alleges and believes he served it.

         2. The affidavit fails to show that the affiant and the person served resided or had their offices in different places (Cunningham v. Warneky , 61 Cal. 507), or that there was any communication by mail between Colusa and San Francisco. (Reed v. Allison , 61 Cal. 461; Steele v. Supervisors of Merced County , 62 Cal. 6.)

         The appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Shepardson

Supreme Court of California
May 31, 1888
76 Cal. 376 (Cal. 1888)
Case details for

Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Shepardson

Case Details

Full title:PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent, v. DUDLEY…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: May 31, 1888

Citations

76 Cal. 376 (Cal. 1888)
18 P. 398

Citing Cases

East Side Canal and Irrigation Company v. Superior Court

"Service by mail is good only where the person making the service and the person on whom it is made reside in…

Ames v. City and County of San Francisco

It may be conceded that it was not necessary for plaintiff to present his claim to the auditor of the city…