Cooper

Cooper v. Gordon

Good Law
125 Cal. 296·1899 Cal. LEXIS 852·57 P. 1006
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 3, 1899S. F. No. 1030California1,491 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This action was commenced on the fifth day .of April, 1883, and summons was issued on the same day. The summons, so far as appears, was never served on any of the defendants, and no return thereof was ever made or filed. The suit was to foreclose a chattel mortgage on a printing press and other contents of a printing office, given to secure an indebtedness for defendant Gordon, according to the terms of a promissory note which is set out in the complaint. As to the other defendants, the complaint merely avers that they have, or claim to have, some interest in the property. So far as the records of the court disclosed, nothing further was done in the case until the eighteenth day' of March, 1896, when, on motion of *299 Thomas W. Howlin, attorney, who appeared specially for the purpose, the suit was dismissed, “pursuant to subdivision 7 of section 581 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” As nearly thirteen years had elapsed since the taking out of summons, and nothing further appeared to have been done in the ease, the order was eminently proper.

On the first day of May, 1896, one J. H. Harper, in the name of plaintiff and as his assignee, moved to vacate the order and judgment of…

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.