General
HATTIE M. KEARNEY, Respondent, v. J. W. PIERSON, Appellant
18 Cal. App. 521·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1912·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
[Civ. No. 1017.
First Appellate District.
March 15, 1912.]
HATTIE M. KEARNEY, Respondent, v. J. W. PIERSON, Appellant.
Order Denting Motion to Vacate Default Judgment—Discretion not Abused—False Statement of Clients—Insufficient Defense—Conflicting Evidence.—Judgment affirmed on the authority of Kearney v. Palmer, ante, p. 517.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. T. W. Harris, Judge.
The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in Kearney v. Palmer, ante, p. 517, with the exception stated by the court.
N. Soderberg, for Appellant.
E. K. Taylor, for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — HALL, J.]
HALL, J.
This case is in all respects similar to the case of Hattie M. Kearney v. John Palmer et al., ante, p. 517, [123 Pac. 611], save that the action is one in ejectment and not to quiet title, and for the same reasons the judgment is affirmed.
Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on May 15, 1912.