Uplinger v. Yonkin (1920) · DecisionDepot

Uplinger v. Yonkin

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal May 11, 1920 No. Civ. No. 2795.Published

Before: Conrey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an authenticated copy of a foreign judgment is sufficient evidence to prove the judgment without the judgment-roll, and that a court of general jurisdiction is presumed to have had jurisdiction over the defendant.

Issues

Whether an authenticated copy of a foreign judgment is admissible without the judgment-roll.
Whether a foreign judgment must affirmatively show personal service to be valid in California.
Whether a judgment rendered without notice of the time of trial to a defaulting defendant is void for lack of jurisdiction.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“an authenticated copy of the judgment alone was received in evidence, without the judgment-roll. This question has been determined adversely to appellant’s contention”

“the court being of general jurisdiction, all presumptions are that it had jurisdiction”

“the notice provided for need not be given to a defaulting defendant.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Leslie R. Hewitt, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

CONREY, P. J.

Action to recover judgment for money due upon a judgment entered against the defendant in the circuit court of DeKalb County, Illinois. Judgment was entered herein against the defendant, who now appeals therefrom. Appellant presents three points, on which he claims that this judgment should be reversed.

[1]

First point: That the Illinois judgment has not been proved as required by law, in this, that an authenticated copy of the judgment alone was received in evidence, without the judgment-roll. This question has been determined adversely to appellant’s contention in

McHatton

Rhodes,

143 Cal. 275, [101 Am. St. Rep. 125, 76 Pac. 1036]. An issue presented in that case depended upon the validity of a judgment of a circuit court, a court of general jurisdiction in the state of Missouri. An authenticated copy of the Missouri judgment was admitted in evidence, without the judgment-roll. The judgment of the superior court was affirmed, notwithstanding'that the decision therein contained was clearly wrong unless supported by the evidence of the foreign judgment.

[2]

Second point: That the judgment sued on is invalid as the basis of a recovery thereon in California, inasmuch as the judgment itself does not show that personal service of the summons in said action was had upon the defendant in the state of Illinois and within the jurisdiction of the court rendering said judgment, and there is not any other proof, by way of record or otherwise, offered in support of such jurisdiction. The judgment, as shown by the copy thereof, duly certified under seal of court and authenticated, states that “it appearing to the court that due personal service of process of summons issued in said cause has been had on the defendant for at least ten days before the first day of this term and he being now here three times solemnly called in open court comes not nor does any person for him, but herein he makes default which is on motion of plaintiff’s attorney ordered to be taken and the same is hereby entered of record.” Thereupon, it is stated, evidence was received, the damages were assessed, and recovery had in the sum

[437]

Uplinger v. Yonkin

AI Brief

Synopsis

CONREY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief