From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Denmark v. Liening

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1858
10 Cal. 93 (Cal. 1858)

Opinion

         Appeal from the County Court of Colusa County.

         COUNSEL:

         Smith & Hardy, for Appellant.

          Crocker & McKune, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Field, J., concurring.

         OPINION

          BURNETT, Judge

         Action before a Justice of the Peace. Judgment by default, against defendant. Appeal to County Court, where the appeal was dismissed, the judgment affirmed, and the defendant appealed to this Court.

         It is objected, by the defendant, that the justice's docket does not show that the summons was properly served upon the defendant. The entry upon the docket states the issuing of the summons, its date, and the time when made returnable; but contains no statement that it was returned by the officer. The summons was returned by the Sheriff, with his certificate, showing that due service was made on July 21st, 1857, and the judgment was entered July 23d. We think the fact of service may be shown by the return of the officer; and that the failure of the justice to state the fact of service in his docket, will not vitiate the judgment on appeal.

         The appeal was on questions of law alone; and the only ground of error alleged in the statement was, that there had been no legal service of the summons, and, therefore, the justice had no jurisdiction. The service being good, and the defendant alleging no other ground, the County Court committed no error in affirming the judgment.

         Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Denmark v. Liening

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1858
10 Cal. 93 (Cal. 1858)
Case details for

Denmark v. Liening

Case Details

Full title:DENMARK et al. v. LIENING

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 1, 1858

Citations

10 Cal. 93 (Cal. 1858)

Citing Cases

Bell v. Bed Rock Tunnel & Mining Co.

But if it were conceded to be in some view wanting in explicitness, yet no substantial error is by its terms…