Trans-Pacific Trading Co. v. Patsy Frock & Romper Co.

California Supreme Court Sep 13, 1922 No. L. A. No. 7105.Published

Before: Lawlor

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the clerk properly entered the defendant's default, the clerk lacked the authority to enter a judgment because all defendants had been served, making the judgment void. The court further held that the complaint was sufficient to provide jurisdiction, even if it failed to state a cause of action.

Issues

Whether the clerk has the authority to enter a judgment when all defendants have been served and are before the court.
Whether a judgment is void if the complaint fails to state a cause of action but provides sufficient notice of the claim.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to vacate the judgment entered by the clerk.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is clear that no authority is vested in the clerk by the sections above quoted to enter a judgment when all the defendants have been served and are before the court”

“It is well established that a judgment is not void if the court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter, irrespective of whether or not the complaint states a cause of action”

[510]

LAWLOR, J.

Wm I. Zidell, one of the defendants, appeals from a judgment entered against him on his default, and from an order denying his motion to set aside the default and judgment.

Respondent, the Trans-Paeifie Trading Company, commenced this action on December 1, 1920, alleging in its complaint that the Patsy Frock and Romper Company. and itself were duly organized corporations; that defendant Patsy Frock and Romper Company and appellant executed a written order directed to respondent, by which the defendants agreed to buy 330 bolts of Japanese cotton crepe for a total sum of $5,940; that on April 21, 1920, respondent accepted the order; that it delivered to defendants and received payment for 164.bolts of the crepe; that thereafter, on April 27, 1920, without cause or reason therefor, defendants notified respondent that they would not accept or receive any more of the crepe; that on November 17, 1920, after giving defendants reasonable notice, and giving the notice required by law, respondent sold the balance of the crepe in open market at the best price obtainable, for the sum of $996; that the expense of the resale was $55; that the difference between the resale price and the contract price was $1,992. It was alleged that appellant owned five hundred shares, defendant Florence Westover 250 shares, and defendant S. B. Lafferty 250 shares of the total of one thousand shares of the capital stock of the defendant Patsy Frock and Romper Company, and that there was due and owing from them $996, $498 and $498, respectively.

For a second cause of action respondent alleged that on May 12, 1920, the defendant Patsy Frock and Romper Company and appellant ordered five hundred bolts of Japanese cotton crepe at a total price of $8,200; that respondent on May 13, 1920, accepted the order; that defendants refused to accept any of the crepe, which was sold, at an expense of $55, for $3,000, or $5,200 below the contract price; and that there was due and owing from appellant $2,600, from defendant Florence Westover, $1,300, and from defendant S. B. Lafferty, $1,300. Judgment was prayed against the corporation for $7,192, against appellant Wm. I. Zidell and defendants Florence Westover and S. B. Lafferty for $3,596, $1,798 and $1,798, respectively.

[511]

Trans-Pacific Trading Co. v. Patsy Frock & Romper Co.

AI Brief

LAWLOR, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief