McGinn

McGinn v. Rees

Bad Law
1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 318·33 Cal. App. 291·165 P. 52·165 P.2d 52
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 22, 1917Civ. No. 1849.California1,626 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

This is an action to foreclose a lien for street work. According to the caption of the complaint the action is against Helen Rees, John Doe Rees (her husband) and four fictitious defendants. Helen Rees, it is alleged in the complaint, is the owner of the property upon which the lien is claimed, and she alone entered into the contract with plaintiff for the performance of the street work. John Doe Rees is not alleged to be a fictitious defendant, but he and the four fictitious defendants, it is averred, claim some right or interest in the property, but which is subordinate to plaintiff’s claim. In the prayer of the complaint judgment is demanded against the defendants for $377.75 with interest and costs, and for a foreclosure of plaintiff’s lien. Summons was served on Helen Rees and Mark Rees, and a judgment by default for the amount demanded was entered against said defendants and the requested decree granted. Within about .three months after the entry of the judgment each of the above-named defendants, specially appearing for that purpose, moved the court to set aside the judgment. Such motion was made, not under the provisions of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but…

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.