122 Cal. 676 | Cal. | 1898
This is an appeal from the order of the superior court refusing to vacate a judgment rendered against defendant.
The grounds of the motion are that the judgment was given through the mistake and inadvertence and surprise of the defendant. The uncontradicted facts shown at the hearing were the following: The defendant is a foreign insurance company. The action was instituted by plaintiff against the defendant to recover upon one of its policies. It was commenced in the city and county of San Francisco. Defendant employed to represent it attorneys who were residents of the city and county of San Francisco. Thereafter plaintiff, by her motion, procured a change in the place of the trial of the action from the city and county of San Francisco to the county of Fresno. The cause was at issue, and upon October 2d it was, under the rules of the
The sole question here presented is, whether or not the court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the judgment upon
The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.
Temple, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.
Hearing in Bank denied.
Beatty, C. J., dissented from the order denying a hearing in. Bank.