From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Will v. Lytle Creek Water Co.

Supreme Court of California
Nov 25, 1893
100 Cal. 344 (Cal. 1893)

Opinion

         Department One

         Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County setting aside a default judgment.

         COUNSEL:

         Willis & Cole, for Appellant.

          Walter Bordwell, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: Paterson, J. Garoutte, J., and Harrison, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          PATERSON, Judge

         This is an appeal from an order setting aside a judgment upon default.

         Within the time allowed by law for answering, the attorney for the defendant herein filed a demurrer to the complaint, but this demurrer was entitled Glenn Will v. The Lytle Creek Water and Improvement Company. It appears that the mistake was made by the attorney's stenographer, and that there is a corporation named the Lytle Creek Water and Improvement Company. The mistake was not discovered until two or three days after the default was entered, but defendant moved promptly to have the default set aside. As there was no laches, and the mistake was a very natural one, we think that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion.

         The affidavit of merits was sufficient. Although made by the attorney of the defendant, it is stated therein that the affiant is personally familiar with the facts connected with the transactions upon which said action is brought; that affiant knows of his own knowledge of facts which constitute a full, meritorious and legal defense to said action, that the defendant has a complete defense to said action. It cannot be said, as claimed by appellant, that it is impossible for this statement to be true. The affiant may have had satisfactory evidence, written and oral, that the claim of the plaintiff's had been entirely settled and paid off, if any ever existed.

         The affidavit is not objectionable on the ground solely that it was made by counsel for the defendant. (Byrne v. Alas , 68 Cal. 479.)

         The order is affirmed.


Summaries of

Will v. Lytle Creek Water Co.

Supreme Court of California
Nov 25, 1893
100 Cal. 344 (Cal. 1893)
Case details for

Will v. Lytle Creek Water Co.

Case Details

Full title:GLENN WILL, Appellant, v. THE LYTLE CREEK WATER CO., Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Nov 25, 1893

Citations

100 Cal. 344 (Cal. 1893)
34 P. 830

Citing Cases

Carraher v. San Francisco Bridge Co.

"          So here in his contention that plaintiff cannot recover because his horse was frightened merely by…