Marks v. Keenan

EDMUND MARKS, Appellant, v. HUGH KEENAN, Respondent

Marks v. Keenan, 82 P. 772 (Cal. 1905)

Court: California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: October 23, 1905
Docket: No. S.F. No. 3482.
Judges: THE COURT.
Citations: 82 P. 772148 Cal. 1611905 Cal. LEXIS 652

Cited by 9

Headnotes

Action—Negligence in Service of Summons—Dismissal for Want of Prosecution—Discretion.—Where it appeared that after filing the complaint and issuing the summons in an action no attempt was made to serve it for more than a year, though defendant was a resident of the city where suit was brought, and Ms place of residence was in the city directory, and the summons was not served until a year and four months after commencement of the action, there was no abuse of discretion in dismissing the action for want of prosecution.

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

THE COURT.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order dismissing the action for want of prosecution. The general rule is that the disposition of a motion to dismiss an action for want of prosecution rests in the discretion of the trial court, and that its action on such motion will not be disturbed here unless such discretion has been grossly abnsed. We see no such abuse of discretion in this case. After the filing of the complaint and the issuing of the summons nothing was done towards serving the summons until more than a year had elapsed. During that time the summons was not given to the sheriff, nor was any other person employed to serve it. The defendant during this time was a resident of San Francisco, where the action was commenced, the place of his residence being in the city directory; and there seems to have been no good reason why he was not served. The service was not made on him until a year and four months after the commencement of the action and the issuance of the summons. Under these circumstances we do not feel called *162 upon to disturb the order appealed from. In Ferris v. Wood, 144 Cal. 426 , [ 77 Pac. 1037 ], cited by appellant, there were special circumstances which were very different from those appearing in the case at bar.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Romero v. Snyder138 P. 1002 (Cal. 1914)
Gray v. Times-Mirror Co.104 P. 481 (Cal. Ct. App. 1909)
Witter v. Phelps126 P. 593 (Cal. 1912)
Barry v. Learner299 P. 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
Grass v. Rindge Co.258 P. 673 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
Overaa v. Keeney147 P. 466 (Cal. 1915)

Most recent

Llyod v. Ganahl335 P.2d 731 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)
Thompson v. Lester67 P.2d 1093 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)
Bryson v. Harryman5 P.2d 665 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
Barry v. Learner299 P. 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
Grass v. Rindge Co.258 P. 673 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
Overaa v. Keeney147 P. 466 (Cal. 1915)

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

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Ferris v. Wood, 77 P. 1037 (Cal. 1904)	25

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list