TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McLain v. Llewellyn Iron Works

AGNES McLAIN, Respondent, v. LLEWELLYN IRON WORKS (A Corporation), Appellant

McLain v. Llewellyn Iron Works, 204 P. 869 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 6, 1922
Docket
No. Civ. No. 3580.
Judges
Finlayson
Citations
204 P. 86956 Cal. App. 58
Headnotes
[1] Default — Application for Belief — Sunning of Time.—The clerk’s entry of the default and not the entry of the judgment by the court fixes the beginning of the six-month period within which an application for relief under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be made. [2] Appeal—Decision of Supreme Court—Effect of.—-A decision of the supreme court that has never been overruled or modified must be followed by the district court of appeal.
Summary
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 — Finlayson

FINLAYSON, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion to set aside its default and the judgment entered thereon.

The action was brought to recover damages for loss suffered by reason of the death of plaintiff’s son through defendant’s alleged negligence. Defendant appeared in the action and filed a demurrer, which was overruled. In its order overruling the demurrer the court allowed defendant ten days to answer. A copy of this order was duly served upon defendant’s counsel on March 10, 1920. Defendant failing to answer within the ten days allowed therefor, the clerk, on March 24, 1920, regularly entered defendant’s default. On October 7, 1920', the court, after hearing evidence on the question of damages, ordered judgment for plaintiff in the sum of fifteen thousand dollars. This judgment, signed by the learned judge of the trial court, was regularly entered October 11, 1920. On October 14, 1920, which was six months and twenty-seven days after thfc clerk *59 had entered its default, defendant served and filed its notice of motion to set aside the default and the judgment entered thereon, upon the ground that the same had been taken by reason of accident and through defendant’s inadvertence and excusable neglect. The order denying the application to set aside the default recites that it is based solely upon the ground that the court is without jurisdiction to grant the motion, the application having been made more than six months after the default was taken.

[1]

It is evident that the application to set aside the default came too late. It was made under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which' provides that an application for relief from a judgment, order, or other proceeding, taken against the applicant through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, must be made “within a reasonable time, but in no case exceeding six months after such judgment, order or proceeding was taken.” In construing this code provision, our supreme court, in the case of Title Ins. Co.

v. King Land etc. Co., 162 Cal. 44 [ 120 Pac. 1066 ], held that the clerks’ entry of the default, and not the entry of the judgment by the court, fixes the beginning of the six months within which the application must be made. Appellant concedes that the supreme court has decided the point adversely to its contention, but undertakes to question the soundness of that court’s reasoning.

[2]

We see no merit in appellant’s argument; and, moreover, a decision of the supreme court that has never been overruled or modified must be followed by this court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Works, J., and Craig, J., concurred.

. A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on March 6, 1922.

All the Justices concurred.

Lennon, J., was absent and Richards, J., 'pro tern., was. acting.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1923: 11924: 11927: 11928: 11933: 11936: 11944: 11945: 11950: 11954: 11962: 119232026peak 1923 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brooks v. Nelson272 P. 610 (Cal. Ct. App. 1928)
  2. Castagnoli v. Castagnoli268 P.2d 37 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954)
  3. MacBeth v. MacBeth25 P.2d 11 (Cal. 1933)
  4. Hinds v. Superior Court223 P. 422 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)
  5. Hunt, Mirk & Company v. Hesperides Mining Co.253 P. 317 (Cal. 1927)
  6. Holsinger v. Holsinger214 P.2d 412 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)

Most recent

  1. Kessler v. Hay211 Cal. App. 2d 164 (1962)
  2. Castagnoli v. Castagnoli268 P.2d 37 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954)
  3. Holsinger v. Holsinger214 P.2d 412 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)
  4. Scott v. Crosthwaite159 P.2d 660 (Cal. Ct. App. 1945)
  5. Leong v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.153 P.2d 204 (Cal. Ct. App. 1944)
  6. Doxey v. Doble54 P.2d 1143 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. King Land & Improvement Co., 120 P. 1066 (Cal. 1912) 54

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