Thompson v. Robbins
Citations
- 32 Wash. 149
- 72 P. 1043
- 1903 Wash. LEXIS 390
Syllabus
<p>SUMMONS-SERVICE BY PUBLICATION-SUFFICIENCY.</p> <p>Where the statute regulating service of summons by publication provides that such summons shall direct the defendant “to appear within sixty days after the date of the first publication of the summons, exclusive of the day of said first publication, and defend the action,” a summons which requires the defendant “to appear within sixty days after the service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service, and defend this action,” would not confer jurisdiction upon the court to render judgment.</p> <p>SAME-SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT-APPEALABLE ORDER.</p> <p>Under Bal. Code, §4880, which provides that, if the summons is not served personally on the defendant in certain cases, he may be allowed to defend within one year after the rendition of judgment, an order setting aside a default and vacating a judgment entered in such a case would not be an appealable order, since such action is not the grant of a new trial, which is made appealable under subd. 6 of Bal. Code, §6500, nor can the right of appeal be claimed under subd. 7 of the same section authorizing appeal from any final order made after judgment, inasmuch as a void judgment could not give the appellant any substantial right capable of being affected by the action of the court.</p>
Judges: Anders
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Williams v. PittockWashington Supreme Court· 1904-06-28· cited 38×
- Elliott v. ClementOregon Supreme Court· 1944-09-19· cited 29×
- Tatum v. GeistWashington Supreme Court· 1905-11-27· cited 27×
- Woodham v. AndersonWashington Supreme Court· 1903-08-10· cited 25×
- Wick v. ReaWashington Supreme Court· 1909-08-11· cited 23×
- Gould v. WhiteWashington Supreme Court· 1909-08-03· cited 20×
- Dolan v. JonesWashington Supreme Court· 1905-02-23· cited 19×
- Rybarczyk v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1979-11-06· cited 17×
- Smith v. WhiteWashington Supreme Court· 1903-08-01· cited 17×
- Longview Fibre Co. v. StokesCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1988-08-17· cited 16×
- Flueck v. PedigoWashington Supreme Court· 1909-11-13· cited 15×
- Hays v. PeaveyWashington Supreme Court· 1909-07-10· cited 13×
- Young v. DrozWashington Supreme Court· 1905-05-01· cited 12×
- Owen v. OwenWashington Supreme Court· 1906-02-23· cited 11×
- Gould v. KnoxWashington Supreme Court· 1909-05-24· cited 10×
- Moller v. GrahamWashington Supreme Court· 1918-04-22· cited 9×
- Bauer v. WidholmWashington Supreme Court· 1908-04-22· cited 9×
- First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. EkangerCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1979-03-20· cited 7×
- Cordiner v. Finch Investment Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1909-08-27· cited 7×
- Newell v. YoungWashington Supreme Court· 1910-07-05· cited 7×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
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.