Shinn v. Cummins
Citations
- 65 Cal. 97
- 3 P. 133
- 1884 Cal. LEXIS 457
Syllabus
<p>Summons—Practice—Indorsement op Attorney’s Name.—A failure to indorse the name of the plaintiff’s attorney upon the hack of a summons will not invalidate it when the name is written upon the face of the writ.</p> <p>Id.—Motion to Dismiss__The pendency of a motion “to dismiss, vacate, and set aside the pretended service of summons and copy of complaint,” does not extend the time specified in the summons for answering.</p>
Judges: Sharpstein
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Williams v. PittockWashington Supreme Court· 1904-06-28· cited 38×
- Central Deep Creek Orchard Co. v. C. C. Taft Co.Idaho Supreme Court· 1921-10-28· cited 16×
- Keybers v. McComberCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-08-27· cited 16×
- Mantle v. CaseyMontana Supreme Court· 1904-12-01· cited 16×
- Naderhoff v. Geo. Benz & SonsNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1913-04-16· cited 15×
- California Improvement Co. v. BaroteauCalifornia Supreme Court· 1897-02-27· cited 12×
- McDonald v. SwettCalifornia Supreme Court· 1888-05-23· cited 11×
- Esden v. MayNevada Supreme Court· 1913-10-15· cited 11×
- Garvie v. GreeneSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1897-04-16· cited 6×
- State ex rel. Jerry v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court· 1920-02-24· cited 6×
- Von Arx v. BooneNinth Circuit· 1912-02-05· cited 5×
- Stanley v. RachofskyOregon Supreme Court· 1908-01-21· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.