Turnbull

Perris Irr. Dist. v. Turnbull

Good Law
132 C.C.A. 74·215 F. 562·1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1266
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 4, 1914No. 2356California710 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Ross, J.

On the 18th of February, 1913,'the court below entered a money judgment by default against the plaintiff in error, which thereafter entered a special appearance for the purpose of its motion only, and moved the court to vacate the judgment and to dismiss the action, which motion was denied March 31, 1913. The present writ is brought for a review of that action of the trial court; the sole contention of the plaintiff in error being that the summons in the action was not issued within one year after the filing of the complaint therein.

The record shows that the complaint was filed December 29, 1904, and that on the 16th day of December, 1905, the clerk of the court prepared and signed as such clerk the usual summons, and affixed thereto' the seal of the court; that the Marshal received the summons January 3, 1907, and personally served the same on the various officers of the defendant irrigation district on various stated days in 1907; and that on the 12th of September of that year the default of the defendant to the action was duly entered for its failure to appear and plead to, answer, or demur to the plaintiff’s complaint.

The various and long delays in the course of 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.