Wheatland

Wheatland v. Maloney

Good Law
110 Cal. App. 288·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 76·294 P. 499
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 6, 1930Docket No. 178.California1,233 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Warmer, J.

The admitted facts, so far as pertinent here, are as follows: On February 11, 1930, plaintiff filed his complaint alleging libel against the defendants, M. C. Maloney et al. The complaint sets out the alleged libelous matter, alleges its falsity and prays for judgment for damages. The clerk, without requiring the bond provided for in the act of March 23, 1872, filed the complaint and issued summons, but no summons or notice of any kind was ever served on the defendants or any of them. On February 17, 1930, a dismissal of the action was entered by the clerk on the written order of plaintiff's attorney, at which time no appearance of any kind had been made. Plaintiff, at the time of the dismissal above referred to, immediately filed another complaint identical with the complaint in the action that had just been dismissed, at which time plaintiff gave the statutory bond, and thereupon caused summons to be issued and served. Said action is now pending. On February 20, 1930, the defendants filed a notice of motion that they would move the court to enter judgment against the plaintiff in the sum of $100 for attorney’s fees in said action theretofore dismissed. The principal point…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.