Brix

St. Clair v. Brix

Good Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 154·89 Cal. App. 94·264 P. 307
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 8, 1928Docket No. 6070.California1,789 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Lucas, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of dismissal for want of prosecution.

This action, originally begun in Kern County, was by stipulation transferred to Fresno County, the original complaint being filed therein on May 5, 1915. Issue was joined on November 22, 1916, the ease set for trial for April 26, 1917, and thereafter reset for December 4, 1917. By reason of the death of the original • defendant, plaintiff was permitted to file and did file on November 26, 1917, an amended and supplemental complaint substituting defendant’s administrators as parties defendant and alleging due presentation and rejection of the claim upon which plaintiff’s original cause of action was based. Defendants were granted ten days in which to answer.

On November 26, 1917, M. B. Harris of Fresno, then one of the attorneys of record for defendants, wrote Anderson and Borton of Bakersfield, attorneys for plaintiff, advising them that the court would not set the case for trial until it was at issue and saying that he would therefore have to wait until the filing of defendants’ answer before arranging for the trial. Anderson and Borton replied on November 27, 1917, suggesting the possibility of stipulating…

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.