Crane v. Brannan
Before: Wells
Synopsis
Where defendant’s attorneys accepted service of the summons, but attached no date, the date of the return of the sheriff was held sufficient.
Where the summons was headed with the words, “ District Court,” but was issued out of the County Court, under the County Court seal, and tested by the Judge of said court, it was held good as the writ of the County Court.
Where the place where the writ was served was not stated, but it was directed to the sheriff of San Francisco, and was returned by him served, the court should have assumed that it was served within his jurisdiction.
Where judgment was entered upon a default for @124 75, and it did not appear that any testimony had been heard, the presumption that a judicial officer has acted regularly, was held to apply to the case, and nothing appearing to the contrary, this court will presume that the Judge had informed himself as to the matter of complaint, in a proper and regular manner, and such judgment will be affirmed.
Wells, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court. Heydenfeldt, Justice, concurred.
Suit was brought in the County Court of San Francisco County, to enforce a mechanic’s lien. The summons was served by the sheriff, upon Clarke, Taylor, and Bickle, who undertook, as attorneys for Brannan, to accept service. The attorneys sign the acceptance of service, but attach no date; the sheriff’s [195]return, however, shows service to have been made on the 13th December, 1851. No answer was filed, and a default was taken on the 24th December, and a judgment entered for the plaintiff. From the judgment of the County Court, defendant appealed to the District Court, where judgment was affirmed; the case is now brought to this court for review.
The memorandum of “District Court,” at the top of the summons, was no part of the writ. It was issued out of the County Court, and tested by the Hon. A. Campbell, Judge of the County Court.
The place where the writ was served is not stated, but the Court should,have assumed, as it was directed to the Sheriff of San Francisco, and as it was returned by him served, that it was served within his jurisdiction.
The form of this summons is at least substantially good, and sufficiently indicates the time when the defendant was required to answer.
It appears that default was entered, and that thereupon the court rendered judgment for $124 75. Whether or not the court received and heard any testimony, does not appear. But it is a settled rule that every presumption is in favor of the conclusion, that a public officer, and particularly a judicial officer, has acted regularly. Nothing appearing to the contrary, we presume the Judge of the County Court informed himself as to the matter of complaint, in a proper and regular manner.
The judgment finds the amount of the claim, and we do not think its validity impaired by not finding the amount of costs, which, at the time of the rendition of judgment, are not generally taxed.
Judgment affirmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)