TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rose v. Lelande

RUTH M. ROSE, Petitioner, v. A. J. LELANDE, as County Clerk, and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, State of California, Respondent

Rose v. Lelande, 129 P. 599 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 3, 1912
Docket
No. Civ. No. 1260.
Judges
Shaw
Citations
129 P. 59920 Cal. App. 5021912 Cal. App. LEXIS 247
Cited by 10
Headnotes
Action Against Officer and Surety—Pleading—Insufficient Answer—Admissions—Mandamus.—The plaintiff in an action on a verified complaint against a defendant sued as a member of a board of public works, and against a corporation defendant, sued as surety on the other defendant’s official bond, is not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the entry of the default of such defendants, by the county clerk, on the ground that their answer is insufficient in not averring the character and relations of the defendants. The failure of the defendants to answer the verified complaint, in that regard, admitted those allegations to be true. Id.—Absence of Official Power of Clerk to Pass upon Insufficiency of Answer.—Conceding the answer to be defective, irregular or insufficient to constitute a defense, the clerk has no judicial power to pass thereon. The clerk, in entering a default, acts ministerially, and in no case is he warranted in making such entry where his authority so to do depends upon a determination of the sufficiency, either as to substance or form of a document on file purporting to constitute an answer to the complaint. Id.—Power of Court to Determine Sufficiency of Answer—Default for Want of Answer Stricken Out—The question as to the sufficiency of the answer was one for the court to determine, either upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or upon a motion to strike the answer from the files. Upon the granting of the latter motion, there being no answer on file, and the time for pleading to the complaint having expired, the clerk would be warranted in entering a default.
Summary
APPLICATION for Writ of Mandate to the County Clerk of Los Angeles County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Shaw

SHAW, J.

This is an ex parte application for an alternative writ of mandate directed to H. J. Lelande, county clerk and ex officio clerk of the superior court of Los Angeles County, commanding him to enter the default of defendants in a certain action pending in said superior court, wherein petitioner is plaintiff and Adna R. Chaffee, sued as a member of the board of public works of the city of Los Angeles, and his official surety, alleged to be a corporation, are defendants, or show cause for his failure so to do.

The petition shows that defendants, within due time, filed their answer to the complaint. Petitioner, however, contends that the purported answer is insufficient for the reason that it is not made to appear therein that Chaffee is a member of the board of public works, or that his codefendant is a corporation. The complaint wherein these facts are alleged is verified, and since the answer does not deny them, they are deemed admitted. Moreover, conceding the answer to be defective, irregular, or insufficient to constitute a defense, the clerk possesses no judicial power to pass thereon. The question as to the sufficiency of the answer was one for the court to determine upon a motion for judgment upon the pleadings, or motion to strike the purported answer from the files, upon the granting of which latter motion, there being no answer on file and the time for pleading to the complaint having expired, the clerk would be warranted in entering a default. The clerk in entering a default acts ministerially, and in no case is he *504 warranted in making such entry where his authority so to do depends upon a determination of the sufficiency, either as to the substance or form, of a document on file purporting to constitute an answer to the complaint.

The application is wholly without merit and is, therefore, denied. * Allen, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1915: 11928: 11942: 11959: 11970: 11974: 11978: 11981: 11985: 12014: 119152026peak 1915 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Isbell v. County of Sonoma577 P.2d 188 (Cal. 1978)
  2. W. A. Rose Co. v. Municipal Court for Oakland-Piedmont Judicial District176 Cal. App. 2d 67 (1959)
  3. Goddard v. Pollock37 Cal. App. 3d 137 (1974)
  4. Potts v. Whitson125 P.2d 947 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
  5. Baske v. Burke125 Cal. App. 3d 38 (1981)
  6. Bertagnolli Bros. v. Bertagnolli148 P. 374 (Wyo. 1915)

Most recent

  1. Alexander v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co.No. B250488 (Cal. Ct. App. June 16, 2014)
  2. Wisdom v. Ramirez177 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 1 (1985)
  3. Baske v. Burke125 Cal. App. 3d 38 (1981)
  4. Isbell v. County of Sonoma577 P.2d 188 (Cal. 1978)
  5. Goddard v. Pollock37 Cal. App. 3d 137 (1974)
  6. Miller v. Hamm9 Cal. App. 3d 860 (1970)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list