P. A. Lamping & Co. v. Red Star Co.

As suggested by respondent’s counsel, there is no statement in the record that can. be considered. But, on the other hand, none is required, for the errors appearing in the judgment-roll, brief as it is, are manifest and manifold. There is no congruity between any two of the documents constituting the judgment-roll.

The summons, in stating the relief demanded, goes beyond, the prayer of the complaint; the officer’s return shows a service on parties not mentioned in the complaint or summons, either by real or fictitious names; the judgment is against all the parties served, and, as to the relief granted, goes even beyond the relief stated in the summons to be demanded, and exceeds that which the contract sued on would authorize, even had it been embraced within the terms of the prayer of the complaint, or the summons.

The judgment is by default, and the court was, therefore, not authorized to grant any greater relief than is demanded in the prayer of the complaint and specified in the summons: Practice Act, 117; Raun v. Reynolds, 11 Cal. 19 ; Gage v. Rogers, 20 Cal. 91 ; Lattimer v. Ryan, 20 Cal. 628 .

The prayer is that plaintiffs “may have judgment against said defendants for…