Craig

Craig v. San Bernardino Inv. Co.

Good Law
101 Cal. 122·1894 Cal. LEXIS 994·35 P. 558
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 25, 1894No. 19262California348 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This appeal is from an order vacating and setting aside a default and judgment, and permitting the defendant to answer.

The application was based on many grounds, one of which was that the default was through excusable neglect, and the order was upon terms.

Suit was brought to rec )ver the value of certain shares of the corporate stock of the corporate defendant, on the ground that the said defendant refused to transfer the shares on its books and issue a new certificate to plaintiff, who was the purchaser and assignee of the stock.

Summons was served upon the secretary of the corporation, who was also a director, and it does not appear that any other officer of the corporation was aware of the controversy. The secretary, as he states in his affidavit, inquired of the plaintiff, who is a lawyer, if the fact that some of the defendants resided in another county would give all defendants thirty days within which to answer, and was informed that it would. For this reason he did not at once refer the matter to an attorney, but waited until he could see the regular attorney of the corporation, who resided at Los Angeles. But for this assurance he would have answered in time.

This…

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.