Newton

Newton v. De Armond

Good Law
1922 Cal. App. LEXIS 20·60 Cal. App. 231·212 P. 630
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 26, 1922Civ. No. 4330.California798 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

A default judgment was entered against the defendant; he made a motion to set aside the default and to vacate the judgment; his motion was denied and the defendant has appealed.

Heretofore (the exact date is not shown) the defendant was the owner and in possession of a certain Fageol motor-truck ; he sold the truck under an executory contract to R C. De Armond, who did, at a date prior to the twenty-eighth day of September, 1921, take out a license in his own name but registered the truck in the records of the motor vehicle department showing James H. Buckley, this defendant, to be the legal owner. Just when the license was taken out the record does not show. On the eighteenth day of August a collision occurred between the Fageol truck and a Packard truck owned and operated by the plaintiff. It is not claimed that the defendant was driving or was personally operating the Fageol motor-truck at the time of the accident. The record contains much hearsay in the form of letters, written by third persons after the accident, which does not throw any light on the matter now before, the court. However, the record shows that a complaint was filed December 19, 1921, in the superior court of…

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.