Aiken v. Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Co.
AIKEN v. THE QUARTZ ROCK MARIPOSA GOLD MINING COMPANY
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Terry.
Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
This was an action against a corporation, by its corporate name. The sheriff's return shows that the summons was served on “ defendant, Waddell, yho was in possession of the property;” the name of Waddell is not mentioned in the complaint, and it does not appear how he became a defendant, or of what property he was in possession.
The 29th section of the Practice Act provides that “ if the suit be against a corporation, the summons shall be served on the president, secretary, cashier, or managing agent thereof.” As Waddell was not shown to be one of the officers named, the judgment by default was *187 improperly entered, and is reversed with costs, and cause remanded for further proceedings.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.