Taliaferro

Taliaferro v. Riddle

Good Law
182 Cal. App. 2d 235·1960 Cal. App. LEXIS 2101·5 Cal. Rptr. 874
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 28, 1960Civ. No. 18788California467 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Draper, J.

Plaintiff appeals from an order setting aside the default of Dorothy, his former wife, who is one of a number of defendants originally joined in this action. The complaint was filed in 1950. On December 12,1958, notice of overruling of respondent’s demurrer to the complaint was served upon her then attorney, who obtained an order extending her time to answer to January 12, 1959. On a date not disclosed by the record, but between January 12 and February 9, 1959, respondent’s default was entered. Judgment upon the default was entered only against respondent on February 9, and respondent’s motion to vacate the default was filed February 16, 1959.

Affidavits in support of respondent’s motion were filed by her former attorney of record in this case, Mr. Moses, and by her present attorney, Mr. Hoogs. Both emphasize the number and complexity of the proceedings between the parties hereto. Mr. Hoogs avers that he had become so ‘ ‘ confused and confounded” by the many cases and the variety of procedural steps taken in each that he found it “extremely difficult to keep an accurate” calendar of the time required for each act to be done in behalf of his client. Mr. Moses also states that the…

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.