TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Byrne v. Alas

M. BYRNE v. ANTONIO ALAS

Byrne v. Alas, 9 P. 850 (Cal. 1886)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 29, 1886
Docket
No. 11249
Judges
Thornton
Citations
9 P. 85068 Cal. 4791886 Cal. LEXIS 467
Headnotes
Ejectment against Indians — Deea,t?i.ts oe Defendants — Motion to Vacate. — The action was brought""to recover the possession of certain land. The defendants, against wbpin defaults were taken, are Mission Indians, and by themselves and their ancestors have occupied the land for many years before the commencement of the action. They are very ignorant and helpless, totally unacquainted with judicial proceedings, and with few exceptions incapable:"of speaking the English language. Held, that a motion to vacate the defaults was properly granted. Id. — Affidavit of Merits — Counsei.".:may Make. — In such a case the affidavit of merits used on the motion, may be made by the counsel of the defendants.
Summary
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County vacating certain defaults. 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 — Thornton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Thornton, J.

— This is an appeal from an order vacating a default. The case is a very peculiar one in its facts. The action is ejectment to recover land from Mission Indians, whose ancestors and the defendants have occupied the land for a long period, — much more than five years before the commencement of the action. They are very ignorant and helpless, totally unacquainted with our modes of judicial proceedings, and are utterly incapable of attending to their interests, if they have any, in regard to the land in controversy. The defendants, are ignorant of the English language, with perhaps one or two exceptions. The above facts appear by affidavit. Under these circumstances, we do not think a very rigid rule should be applied to them on the question of default. The affidavit of merits, though made by their counsel, we think, owing to the ignorance of the defendants, should be received as sufficient. There is reason to believe that none of the defendants could state the facts in relation to their connection with the land, and if they had any title, would be capable of explaining it. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the court below erred in vacating the default, and in allowing the defendants to answer and set up such title as they have, that the question may be deliberately determined on a trial had according to law. .

The order is therefore affirmed.

Ordered accordingly.

Sharpstein, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1893: 11899: 118932026peak 1893 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Daum v. Conley27 Colo. 56 (1899)
  2. Will v. The Lytle Creek Water Co.34 P. 830 (Cal. 1893)

Most recent

  1. Daum v. Conley27 Colo. 56 (1899)
  2. Will v. The Lytle Creek Water Co.34 P. 830 (Cal. 1893)

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