Handy

Handy v. Samada

Good Law
107 Cal. App. 565·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 352·290 P. 492
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 4, 1930Docket No. 106.California480 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Cary, J.

This in an appeal from the order denying a motion of defendant to set aside a default and relieve him from a judgment by default. The action was brought to recover a money judgment for goods sold and delivered.

July 30, 1928, the summons was served on appellant and two days thereafter was served on his co-defendant Kobashigawa. The summons was served in the county in which the action was pending and thus appellant’s last day to appear would have been August 9, 1928. Not until September 24, 1928, was the default entered. October 26, 1928, he made his motion, to set aside the default supported by his affidavit.

This affidavit was in substance as follows: That affiant had never purchased or authorized the purchase of any goods from plaintiff; that he had never received any such goods; that immediately after being served with summons he went to his co-defendant Kobashigawa, who informed him that he, the co-defendant, had purchased the goods from plaintiff, that affiant need not worry about the matter, but that Kobashigawa would pay plaintiff and that it was not necessary for affiant to incur any expense or employ any attorney; that affiant believed his co-defendant and relied upon…

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.