From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mullan

Supreme Court of California
Jul 18, 1884
65 Cal. 396 (Cal. 1884)

Summary

In People v. Mullan, 65 Cal. 396 [4 P. 348], it appeared that on January 4, 1881, judgment had been rendered against Mullan in an action affecting the title to certain land.

Summary of this case from Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co.

Opinion

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County refusing to set aside a judgment.

         COUNSEL:

         Satterwhite & Curtis, and J. & J. C. Lynch, for Appellant.

         R. E. Bledsoe, and C. W. C. Rowell, for Respondent.


         OPINION

          THORNTON, Judge

         The facts are stated in the head-note and the opinion of the court.

         The motion to set aside the judgment is a direct and not collateral attack.

         The moving party offered to show that there was no service of summons on Mullan. The service purported to be by publication, and the specific offer was to show that no affidavit for publication of summons was ever made, and that there was no order made authorizing such publication. On objection by plaintiff the offer was rejected, and an exception was reserved.

         The judgment, if rendered as offered to be shown, was void. If Mullan was the mover, such ruling would undoubtedly be error. He would be entitled to show that the judgment was entered without authority of law. The motion is made by the Cucamonga Company, a corporation to which the land involved in the action had been conveyed, and a certificate of purchase therefor assigned by Mullan on the 20th of October, 1881 This was after the judgment attacked had been entered, which was on the 4th day of January, 1881.

         But we regard the corporation as in legal effect the assignee and legal representative of Mullan, and standing in his shoes. We think the motion was well made. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473; U.S. v. Patterson, 15 How. 12.) The company could have moved in the name of Mullan, and it has substantially done this. We should be sacrificing form to substance, to hold otherwise. The same remarks apply to the appeal.

          [4 P. 349] The court below erred in its ruling. The order is therefore reversed and the cause remanded, to be proceeded with according to what is here said.

         SHARPSTEIN, J., and MYRICK, J., concurred.


Summaries of

People v. Mullan

Supreme Court of California
Jul 18, 1884
65 Cal. 396 (Cal. 1884)

In People v. Mullan, 65 Cal. 396 [4 P. 348], it appeared that on January 4, 1881, judgment had been rendered against Mullan in an action affecting the title to certain land.

Summary of this case from Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co.

In People v. Mullen, 65 Cal. 396, People v. Pearson, 76 Cal. 400, and People v. Greene, 74 Cal. 400, it had been distinctly held that a judgment void on its face could be set aside on motion, without regard to the lapse of time; and in my judgment there was no occasion to overrule these decisions, or to overturn the established rule on the subject.

Summary of this case from People v. Harrison

In People v. Mullan (1884) 65 Cal. 396 [ 4 P. 348] (Mullan), a judgment had been entered against Mullan which affected title to certain real property and Mullan later conveyed the property to The Cucamonga Company.

Summary of this case from Nelson v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

In People v. Mullan, 65 Cal. 396, 4 P. 348, it appeared that on January 4, 1881, judgment had been rendered against Mullan in an action affecting the title to certain land.

Summary of this case from Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co.
Case details for

People v. Mullan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, RESPONDENT, v. JOHN MULLAN, DEFENDANT

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 18, 1884

Citations

65 Cal. 396 (Cal. 1884)
4 P. 348

Citing Cases

Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co.

Not being present in court, he was not able to combat any intrinsic fraud that may have been practiced…

People v. Goodhue

COUNSEL:          The motion to set aside a judgment may be made by a successor in interest (People v. Mullan…