Lawrence

Lawrence v. Ballou

Good Law
1875 Cal. LEXIS 139·50 Cal. 258
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1875No. 3196California483 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

McKinstry, J.

These are cross-appeals in the same cause, and were argued together.

The Hazard Powder Company did not become a party to this action until the 19th day of April, 1871, when its answer was in effect filed. The plaintiff having moved to make the company a party defendant on the 19th of April, and having stipulated on the 13th of May that the answer should be filed on that day as of the 19th of April, cannot be *264 heard to say that the company was not a party and present in court from the last-named day.

If the Hazard Powder Company be considered as appearing on the 19th of April, the Statute of Limitations had run in its favor, since the District Court found that the company ousted and ejected the plaintiff September 13, 1865, and from thence had held the adverse possession. The Court also found that E. H. Parker had been the managing agent of the company (a foreign corporation), in this State from the first day of January, 1853. We are of opinion that when a foreign corporation has a managing agent in this State (exercising openly his authority as such, and without fraudulent concealment), the corporation is within the State within the intent of the Statute of Limitations. It…

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.

Lawrence · Supreme Court of California · 1875 | Caselegis