Case Name: AIKEN v. THE QUARTZ ROCK MARIPOSA GOLD MINING COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1856
Citations: 6 Cal. 186
Docket Number: 
Parties: AIKEN v. THE QUARTZ ROCK MARIPOSA GOLD MINING COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 186–187

Head Matter:
AIKEN v. THE QUARTZ ROCK MARIPOSA GOLD MINING COMPANY.
In a suit against a corporation, the summons must he served on one of the officers or agents named in the Practice Act.
Service on a party in possession of the property, who does not appear to he one of the officers named, will not entitle the plaintiff to a judgment hy default.
Appeal from the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, County of Mariposa.
The facts appear in the opinion of the Court.
C. Temple Emmet for Appellant.
Cole & Whiting, and R. H. Daly for Respondent.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Terry.
Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
This was an action against a corporation, by its corporate name. The sheriff's return shows that the summons was served on " defendant, Waddell, yho was in possession of the property;" the name of Waddell is not mentioned in the complaint, and it does not appear how he became a defendant, or of what property he was in possession.
The 29th section of the Practice Act provides that " if the suit be against a corporation, the summons shall be served on the president, secretary, cashier, or managing agent thereof." As Waddell was not shown to be one of the officers named, the judgment by default was improperly entered, and is reversed with costs, and cause remanded for further proceedings.