Alexander v. McDow
Before: Henshaw
Synopsis
•Summons—Return of Service—Clerical Error—Vacation of Judgment by Default.—Where a summons against one defendant only is returned as having been served upon the defendant personally an irregularity consisting of a clerical error or slip of the pen, by which a letter is affixed to the last name of the defendant which did not belong to his name, does not affect the regular service of the summons, and the irregularity is no ground for vacating a judgment by default.
Action Upon Note—Sufficiency of Pleading—Assignment to Plaintiff—Support of Judgment.—In an action upon a note a complaint alleging the execution of the note set out in hose verba, and described as indorsed by the payees to the plaintiff by name, accompanied by the allegation that no part of the note had been paid, and that the whole thereof is due and owing from the defendant to the plaintiff, though defective in not distinctly alleging an assignment of the note to the plaintiff, is sufficient to support a judgment by default, which cures all defects in averments which by fair and reasonable intendment have been pleaded, though defectively. Such complaint shows an indorsement by assignment of the note to the plaintiff, and that plaintiff is the owner and holder of it. .
Id.—Allowance of Attorneys’ Fees—Stipulation in Note—Default. Where the body of the note set forth in the complaint provides for an allowance of ten per cent for attorneys’ fees for the collection of the note, and the prayer of the complaint is for such an allowance, and it appears that the action was brought by an attorney at law, the default of the defendant admits the reasonableness of the claim for attorneys’ fees, and no evidence was required to be taken for the purpose of fixing the agreed allowance in the judgment, although the allowance might have been contested by the defendant.
Id.—Judgment for Attorneys’ Fees Entered by Clerk—Ministerial Action.—The action of the clerk in estimating and adding the amount of attorneys’ fees to the judgment by default is as purely ministerial as his calculation of interest upon the principal sum of the note, and he was acting within the scope of his authority in entering judgment for the attorneys’ fees.
Id.—Specification in Summons—Limitation of Authority of Clerk— Modification of Judgment—Costs of Appeal.—The clerk has no authority to enter judgment for an amount in excess of the amount specified in the summons, and, if a judgment by default is entered in excess of that amount, the superior court will be directed to order the clerk' to modify it by entering therein the amount specified in the summons, and the appellant will be allowed the costs of his appeal.
Henshaw, J. There are two appeals. The first is from an order refusing to recall and quash the execution and to vacate the judgment; the second from the judgment rendered against defendant after his default.
The grounds of the motion are that the judgment is void upon its face in showing no service of summons and complaint upon defendant, and that it is void for that the complaint states no cause of action.
1. Upon the summons the sheriff made the following return:
“I hereby certify that I received the within summons on the 14th day of-, a. d. 189-, and personally served the same on the 16th day of October, a. d. 1893, on L. D. McDow, defendant therein named, by delivering to each of said defendant personally, in the-town of Susanville, county of Lassen, a copy of said summons, and upon defendant, L. D. McDown, personallyy [28]in the town of Susanville, county of Lassen, a copy of said summons attached to a copy of the complaint in the action therein named.”
The irregularity which it is contended renders the return a nullity is the addition of the terminal letter n to the name of the defendant, L. D. McDow. The court, in its order holding the return sufficient, said: “ There is no question but that the summons was regularly served. There is but one defendant, viz., L. D. McDow, and the return shows that ‘ the defendant ’ was served with copy of complaint, although, by what is evidently a clerical error, a slip of the pen, the letter ‘ n’ is affixed to the last letter of the name ‘ McDow.’ ”
"We think the ruling and the reasons upon which it is based are both sound.
2. The complaint is in form as follows:
“ Plaintiff complains of defendant, and for cause of action alleges: That on the 28th day of November, 1888, the defendant made and delivered to Levy & Alexander his promissory note in the words and figures as follows, to wit:
“ * $848.14. Susanville, Cal., Nov. 28, ’88.
“ ‘ On or before the 29th day of November, 1888, without grace, for value received, I, or either of us, promise to pay Levy & Alexander, or order, eight hundred and forty-eight XW dollars, with interest thereon from November 28, 1888, at one per' cent per month, interest to be added to principal and compounded every six months, and ten per cent of total amount due for attorneys’ fees incurred in the collection of this note, when collection is made by attorney or other officer. Demand, notice of nonpayment, and protest of this note is hereby waived by each and every signer and indorser. Principal and interest both payable in United States gold coin, and the same collectible in any part of the United States.
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)