Tidwell v. Henricks
Decision Date | 23 March 1954 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | TIDWELL v. HENRICKS. Civ. 19925. |
Juaneita M. Veron, Huntington Park, for appellant.
Walleck, Olstyn & Johnson, Robert F. Johnson, Van Nuys, for respondent.
This is an appeal from the order denying the defendant's motion to vacate judgment, and to set aside the default.
As recited in appellant's brief, 'On or about July 18, 1952, the adult married son of appellant was operating an automobile on a certain boulevard in the City of Maywood, State of California, and while so operating an automobile became involved in an accident in which the respondent herein was injured. The respondent was a pedestrian. The automobile operated by the son of appellant was owned by and registered in his name.
It is contended on appeal that:
'(1) A default judgment rendered upon an entry of default which is wholly unauthorized is a void judgment.
'(2) To authorize the entry of a default the Court must have obtained jurisdiction of the defendant.
'(3) Where a default has been entered and thereafter the complaint is amended in substance the amendment opens the default and unless amended pleadings are served upon the defaulting defendant no judgment can be entered.'
It should be noted at the outset that only the copy of the amendment was served on appellant.
As argued by appellant, 'It is settled that where, after the default of a defendant has been entered, a complaint is amended in a matter of substance as distinguished from a matter of form the amendment opens the default, and unless...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ford v. Superior Court
...matters not whether the amendment is accomplished by an amended complaint or an amendment to the complaint. (See Tidwell v. Henricks, 124 Cal.App.2d 64, 65--66, 268 P.2d 84; cf. Cohen v. Superior Court, Supra, 244 Cal.App.2d at p. 657, 53 Cal.Rptr. 378.) Moreover, plaintiff's 'FIRST AMENDME......
-
Hayes v. Risk
...complaint is dropped out of the case and ceases to have any effect as a pleading, or as a basis for a judgment. (Tidwell v. Henricks, 124 Cal.App.2d 64, 66, 268 P.2d 84.) The record discloses that Hayes was personally served with a copy of the original complaint and the summons issued there......
-
Ogier v. Pacific Oil & Gas Development Corp.
...in these cases no demurrer had been sustained, the liberal attitude of the courts towards pleadings is indicated. In Tidwell v. Henricks, 124 Cal.App.2d 64, 268 P.2d 84, the default of the defendant was taken for failure to answer the complaint. Thereafter the plaintiff filed and served an ......
-
Ulmschneider v. Stockton Unified Sch. Dist.
...Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131 [there can be only one operative complaint at a time]; see also Tidwell v. Henricks (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 64, 66.)6 Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the time for responding to an amended pleading is computed from the date of service......