Criminal Law · MBE-tested
THOMPSON and Others v. SPRAIG
2 Cal. Unrep. 3464 Pac. 418·Supreme Court of California·1884·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
THOMPSON and Others v. SPRAIG. *
No. 9496;
July 26, 1884.
4 Pac. 418.
Dismissal of Action.—Where Defendant in His Answer Sought Affirmative Relief, an attempted dismissal of the action by plaintiffs, on the day before the ease was to be- called for trial, was a nullity.
Trial—Judgment in Absence of Plaintiff.—A ease having been regularly set for trial, of which plaintiffs had notice, it was their duty to have attended at the time appointed, and a judgment in their absence is not error.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Amador County.
This cause having been set for trial and being regularly called on the day set, and the plaintiffs not appearing, defendant proceeded with his case. Thereupon the court rendered judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed. The other facts' appear in the opinion.
Egan & Armstrong for appellants; A. Caminetti for respondent.
Reversed in bank. See 66 Cal. 350, 5 Pac. 506.
[MAJORITY — By the COURT.]
By the COURT.
Defendant in his answer, having sought affirmative relief, the attempted dismissal of the action by the plaintiffs, the day before the case was to be called for trial, was a nullity: Code Civ. Proc., sec. 581. The case having been regularly set for trial, of which plaintiffs had notice, it was their duty to have attended at the time appointed.
Order affirmed.