MacLay Co. v. Superior Court

Prohibition. The history of the litigation out of which springs the cause for seeking the writ in this action will be found in the opinion of Justice Hart in the case of Maclay Company v. N. S. Meads, Charles P. Doe, H. G. Cox and G. L. Ray, as Individuals and as Copartners Under the Firm Name and Style of Petaluma Transportation Company, 14 Cal. App. 363 , [ 112 Pac. 195 ], and an opinion on rehearing, at page 374 of 14 Cal. App., [ 113 Pac. 364 ], The narrative of facts brings the history down to the judgment in favor of plaintiff against Meads, Ray and the Petaluma Transportation Company, entered November 27, 1909. It also therein appears that, on November 29, 1909, the defendants appeared, filed a motion to set aside the default entered against them in the action, and also filed a demurrer to the complaint; that on December 3, 1909, plaintiff caused a writ of restitution to be issued which was by the sheriff returned executed by putting the plaintiff in possession of the premises on December 6th; that on the same day, December 6, 1909, the motion of defendants tó set aside the default was heard and denied, permission being given, however, to notice and file a motion to vacate…