Stoutenborough

The plaintiffs commenced this action in March, 1876, to quiet their title to a lot of land in the city and county of San Francisco. In due time an answer and cross-complaint were filed, setting up the defendant’s ownership of the lot, and thereafter an answer to the cross-complaint was filed denying the defendant’s ownership, and setting up the statute of limitations.

On July 18, 1881, an order was entered by the clerk in the minutes of the court, which, after setting out the title of the court and cause, reads as follows:

Nothing further appears to have been done in the case until September 20, 1892, when a formal judgment of dismissal was recorded and a judgment-roll made up and certified by the clerk.

In January, 1893, the plaintiffs served on defendant and filed in court a notice that on a day named they would move the court to set aside and vacate the said judgment of September 20, 1892, also to set aside and vacate the said order of July 18, 1881, and to enter an order nunc pro tunc, as of August 4, 1880, reading as follows, after *666 setting out the title of the cause: “On motion of plaintiffs made in open court the above-entitled cause is hereby dismissed.”

The notice…