Dunton

Dunton v. Tanigoshi

Good Law
1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 406·47 Cal. App. 231·190 P. 467
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 28, 1920Civ. No. 2820.California414 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

James, J.

After the plaintiffs herein had caused judgment by default to be entered against the defendants, defendants presented a motion to set aside the same and to he allowed to file an answer. The motion was granted. Plaintiffs appeal from the order.

[1] The main point presented is as to the sufficiency of the notice as given by the defendants of their motion to set aside the default and the judgment entered thereon. The notice specified that the motion would be made on “Wednesday, the 1st day of July, 1918, at ten o’clock in the forenoon of said day.” As a matter of fact, Monday was the first day of July, and not Wednesday, and the motion was heard on Monday. Plaintiffs made no appearance at the hearing of the motion, and they contend now that the notice of motion was of no effect because it was indefinite as to the time when the motion would he presented. We think that the notice was a good notice bringing on the motion for the first day of July, and that the word “Wednesday” should be disregarded. The mention of the particular day of the week was not necessary to the notice, and a misstatement of that day, where the notice definitely designated “the 1st day of July, 1918,” was, to…

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.