Clune

Clune v. Quitzow

Good Law
125 Cal. 213·1899 Cal. LEXIS 829·57 P. 886
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 23, 1899S. F. No. 1004California385 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

This action was based upon three separate causes of action to recover certain sums of money. The defendant answered, putting the facts in issue, and sought to recover from the plaintiff four hundred and four dollars and thirty-seven cents. Plaintiff failed to appear at the trial. The *214 defendant, as appears from the judgment, was sworn and examined as a witness, and the court thereupon entered judgment that plaintiff “do take nothing by his said action as against H. W. Quitzow, defendant, but that judgment be, and the same is hereby, entered herein in favor of the defendant for his (defendant’s) costs and disbursements incurred in this action, amounting to the sum of ten dollars.”

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment, upon the judgment-roll, contending that: “Plaintiff having failed to appear at the trial, having offered no proofs, and having in effect abandoned the ease, the judgment should have been a judgment of dismissal, and not on the merits.”

Appellant relies upon sections 581 and 582 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 581 contains six subdivisions, setting out the circumstances under which an action may be dismissed, or a nonsuit entered. Under subdivision 3…

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.