Golish

Golish v. Feinstein

Good Law
123 Cal. App. 547·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 990·11 P.2d 893
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 19, 1932Docket Nos. 6937, 7091.California813 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

York, J.

Two appeals have been prosecuted by the plaintiff in the above-entitled action, which appeals came to this court upon bills of exceptions.

The default of the defendant for failure to answer the second amended complaint was entered on the eleventh day of July, 1929; a judgment by default by clerk was entered in plaintiff’s favor on the same day, and execution was placed in the hands of the sheriff. Thereafter, on the ■fifteenth day of July, 1929, defendant served and filed his -notice of intention to move to vacate the said default judgment, and at the same time served his notice of intention to move for judgment on the pleadings, and to strike the second amended complaint. These motions came on to be heard in the law and motion department on the seventeenth day of July, 1929, at which time said motions were transferred by the judge therein presiding to the department of Judge Marshall F. McComb for hearing and determination. Before said motions were called for hearing, plaintiff presented to the court and filed with the clerk her verified objections to the hearing by Judge McComb of any further issue of law or fact, upon the ground of bias and prejudice of said judge. By…

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.