Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
SHIVELY et al. v. KOCHMAN et al.
An appeal from an order vacating a default and setting aside a judgment entered thereon.
The action was brought to recover installments of rent and damages for the loss of and injuries to certain personal property. Subsequently, the plaintiffs by leave of the court served and filed a pleading, designated a supplemental and amended complaint, and defendants were allowed ten days to answer the same. They having failed to answer, their default was taken and a judgment was entered against them. This they moved to vacate, and their motion was granted.
In support of the motion they served and filed an affidavit by their attorney and a verified answer to the supplemental and amended complaint. Plaintiffs contend that these were not sufficient to support the order appealed from.
While the previous pleadings in the case are not contained in the record, it is undisputed that the defendants had answered the original complaint; and it appears from the affidavit in support of the motion that a few days before the filing of the amended and supplemental complaint the case had been set for trial by the plaintiffs. It appears that in the supplemental portion of the complaint plaintiffs alleged that installments of rent had accrued since the commencement of the action, and recovery of these sums was sought by the new pleading. According to the affidavit mentioned, defendants' attorney noted in his register of actions the date fixed for the trial, but through inadvertence failed to note the expiration of the time within which his clients were required to answer the new pleading.
It is well settled that the granting of relief from a default is a matter of discretion with the trial court, which will not be interfered with on appeal unless such discretion has been abused. Here the defendants made timely application for relief, and the facts bring the case fairly within the rule stated in the following decisions: O'Brien v. Leach, 139 Cal. 220, 72 P. 1004, 96 Am.St.Rep. 105; Downing v. Klondike Min. Co., 165 Cal. 786, 134 P. 970; Berri v. Rogero, 168 Cal. 736, 145 P. 95; Hagenkamp v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 29 Cal.App. 713, 156 P. 520; Hayes v. Pierce (Cal.App.) 64 P.(2d) 728; Brasher v. White, 53 Cal.App. 545, 200 P. 657.
An affidavit of merits was filed by the defendants' attorney, and complaint is made that this also was insufficient. However, one of the defendants verified the answer mentioned, which denied the material allegations of the amended pleading. The answer supplied any deficiencies in the affidavit, and such has been held to be sufficient. Waybright v. Anderson, 200 Cal. 374, 253 P. 148.
No abuse of discretion has been shown, and the order appealed from is accordingly affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Civ. 10300.
Decided: November 12, 1937
Court: District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)