Cowden

Cowden v. Wild Goose Mining & Trading Co.

Good Law
118 C.C.A. 35·199 F. 561·3 Alaska Fed. 874·1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1744
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 7, 1912No. 2,096California1,847 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ross, J.

(after stating the facts as above).

The intervener holds a receiver’s certificate, similar to that Lfid by the plaintiff Cowden, and seeks similar relief, and upon the same grounds. They therefore occupy precisely the same position.

The plaintiffs contend that the judgments in cases numbered 1,570, 1,571, and 1,573 are void, on the ground of fraud in the indebtedness upon which they were founded, and because of lack of service of process therein upon an accredited agent of the Campion Mining & Trading Company. The service, as has been seen, was made upon one William A. Gilmore, who pretended to be the agent and representative of the company, and who filed general appearances and pleadings for it in those cases. The complaint shows that service was made on Gilmore on the 18th of August, 1906, and that he appeared and pleaded in due time, and that it was not until July 2, 1907 — nearly one year thereafter — that the judgments were entered. Not only is there no allegation in the complaint that the Campion Mining & Trading Company did not know of the bringing of those actions and of the proceedings therein, but this allegation in the complaint affirmatively shows that that company…

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.