Paradise v. Nowlin, 195 P.2d 867 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948). · Go Syfert
Search
Paradise v. Nowlin, 195 P.2d 867 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
98 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: YACHT ASSIST, INC. v. CRP LMC PROP CO LLC (fladistctapp, 2022-12-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1957 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1957 1991 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#11 28 U.S.C. § 394 cited 1× in this case · 38 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) YACHT ASSIST, INC. v. CRP LMC PROP CO LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Hardee Cnty., 184 So. 2d 438, 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966) (quoting Paradise v. Nowlin, 195 P.2d 867, 867 (Cal. Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Valkof v. U.S. Bank CA2/8
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Valkof Timely Cured His Lack of an Attorney The Bank asks us to dismiss Valkof’s appeal without considering the merits because he filed his notice of appeal pro se, without counsel, as a derivative of an LLC, citing Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898 (Paradise) [“A corporation cannot appear in court by an officer who is not an attorney and it cannot appear in propria persona”].) We decline to do so, following more recent precedent holding that a pro se filing can be cured by timely obtaining counsel.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gutierrez v. G & M OIL COMPANY, INC.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
(Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898 [ 195 P.2d 867 ] [“A corporation cannot appear in court by an officer who is not an attorney and it cannot appear in propria persona.”].) The very corporate form then, in the context of litigation, treats in-house attorneys, whether they be officers or not, as agents separate from the corporation itself.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Fraser
Cal. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
This court has previously stated, “Under the law, a party may choose to act as his or her own attorney.” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 416 ]; see also Baba v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th 504, 523 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 428 ] [“California recognizes a general right to represent oneself in a civil proceeding”]; Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898 [ 195 P.2d 867 ] [only a natural person may represent himself or herself].) In the present case, even assuming arguendo that there is either a common law or a statutory right to sel…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Baba v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF SAN FRANCISCO (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., O’Connell v. Judnich (1925) 71 Cal.App. 386, 388 [ 235 P. 664 ] (O’Connell); Culley v. Cochran (1930) 107 Cal.App. 525, 531 [ 290 P. 484 ]; Gray v. Justice’s Court (1937) 18 Cal.App.2d 420, 423 [ 63 P.2d 1160 ]; Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898 [ 195 P2d 867 ], questioned on other grounds in CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1147 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 555 ]; Monastero v. Los Angeles Transit Co. (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 156, 160 [ 280 P.2d 187 ]; Doran v. Dreyer (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 289, 290 [ 299 P.2d 661 ]; People ex rel.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nwosu v. Uba
Cal. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
(Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898 [ 195 P.2d 867 ]; Gray v. Justice’s Court (1937) 18 Cal.App.2d 420, 423 [ 63 P.2d 1160 ].) “[S]uch a party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. [Citation.]” (Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 328 ].) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, pro. per. litigants must follow correct rules of procedure.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 727, 729 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 581 P.2d 636 ] (Merco); Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 199 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 401 ]; Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898 [ 195 P.2d 867 ] (Paradise); see also Van Gundy v. Camelot Resorts, Inc. (1983) 152 Cal.App.3d Supp. 29, 31 [ 199 Cal.Rptr. 771 ].) One of the principal rationales for the general rule is found in the California Supreme Court’s explanation in Merco, supra, 21 Cal.3d at page *1102 730, that “[t]he qualifications of the human representing a corporation—or for that…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Boydston v. Strole Development Co.
Ariz. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Id. 195 P.2d at 867 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Say & Say, Inc. v. Ebershoff
Cal. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 581 P.2d 636 ]; Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898 [ 195 P.2d 867 ].) Further, we have never been directed to any evidence Say & Say, Inc., has ever attempted to appear without counsel in any litigation.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. Turnham
Minn. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Design, 431 N.W.2d at 134 (quoting Paradise v. Nowlin, 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898 , 195 P.2d 867, 867 (1948)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Perry Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1978 · confidence medium
Moreover, even if the petition had been dismissed as defectively filed by the two corporate entities (see Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898-899 [ 195 P.2d 867 ]), our decision with respect to the then remaining petition of Ernest Perry as an individual would nevertheless be as binding upon each member of the tripartite single employing entity as it is under the present circumstances.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Merco Construction Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (2×)
Cal. · 1978 · confidence medium
Exchange (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 304, 311 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 530 ]; Himmell v. City Council (1959) 169 Cal. App.2d 97, 100 [ 336 P.2d 996 ]; Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal. App.2d 897, 898 [ 195 P.2d 867 ].) Merco contends the established rule is inapplicable because, for the first time, section 90 expressly provides for representation in propria persona.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roddis v. All-Coverage Insurance Exchange Automobile & Fire
Cal. Ct. App. · 1967 · confidence medium
(Himmel v. City Council (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 97, 100-101 [ 336 P.2d 996 ]; Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898 [ 195 P.2d 867 ].) The order is affirmed.
discussed Cited "see" MacNeil v. Hearst Corporation (2×)
D. Del. · 1958 · signal: see · confidence high
See eases collected in Paradise v. Nowlin, 86 Cal.App.2d 897 , 195 P.2d 867 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Church of the Visible Intelligence (2×)
Ct. Cl. · 1981 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Paradise v. Nowlin, 86 Cal. App. 2d 897 , 195 P.2d 867 (1948), and see discussion in Merco Constr.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Globe Leasing, Inc. v. Engine Supply & MacHine Service (2×)
Tex. App. · 1969 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Paradise et al. v. Nowlin, 86 Cal.App.2d 897 , 195 P.2d 867 ; American Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Clark & Fray Construction Co., 2 Conn.Cir. 284, 198 A.2d 68 ; Nicholson Supply Co., Inc. v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Hardee County, 184 So.2d 438 (Ct.of App., Fla.); Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations, Vol. 9, Sec. 4463, 1964 Rev.Edition; 7 Am.Jur.2d, Sec. 6.
PHIL H. PARADISE Et Al., Respondents,
v.
GENEVIEVE R. NOWLIN Et Al., Defendants; FEDERATED INCOME PROPERTIES (A Corporation), Appellant
Civ. 16569.
California Court of Appeal.
Jul 26, 1948.
195 P.2d 867
Federated Income Properties, Inc., in pro. per., for Appellant., Snyder & Fletcher for Respondents.
Wilson.
Cited by 47 opinions  |  Published
WILSON, J.

Plaintiffs-respondents have moved to dismiss the appeal of defendant-appellant Federated Income Properties, Incorporated, a corporation, on the ground that appellant failed to pay the filing fee within 20 days after being notified by the clerk of the Supreme Court to pay the same. (See Rules on Appeal, rule 10(a), 22 Cal.2d 10.)

The motion must be granted on the ground stated but there is another and more important reason for the dismissal of the appeal on the court’s own motion, to wit, that the defendant corporation filed the notice of appeal in the superior court and its opposition to the dismissal in this court in propria persona. Such notice and opposition are void by reason of the corporation’s lack of power to represent itself in an action in court. Defendant was represented by an attorney at the trial but his services apparently terminated with the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

A composite of the rule in the decided cases, overwhelmingly sustained by the authorities, may be thus stated: A natural person may represent himself and present his own ease to the court although he is not a licensed attorney. A corporation is not a natural person. It is an artificial entity created by law and as such it can neither practice law nor appear or act in person. Out of court it must act in its affairs through its agents and representatives and in matters in court it can act only through licensed attorneys. A corporation cannot appear in court by an officer who is not an attorney and it cannot appear in propria persona. (Bennie v. Triangle Ranch Co., 73 Colo. 586 [216 P. 718] ; Mortgage Comm. v. Great Neck Imp. Co., 162 Misc. 416 [295 N.Y.S. 107, 112]; Aberdeen Bindery v. Eastern States etc. Co., 166 Misc. 904 [3 N.Y.S.2d 419, 423]; Finox Realty Corp. v. Lippman, 163 Misc. 870 [296 N.Y.S. 945, 949]; J. T. Whalen, Inc. v. Pritzert, 167 Misc. 471 [3[*899] N.Y.S.2d 418]; Nispel v. Western Union R. R. Co., 64 Ill. 311, 314; Nixon, Ellison & Co. v. Southwestern Ins. Co., 47 Ill. 444, 446; Kankakee Drainage Dist. v. Commissioners, 29 Ill. App. 86, 87; State Bank v. Bell, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 127; Culpeper Natl. Bank v. Tidewater Imp. Co., 119 Va. 73 [89 S.E. 118, 120]; Clark v. Austin, 340 Mo. 467 [101 S.W.2d 977, 982]; New Jersey Photo Eng. Co. v. Carl Schonert & Sons, 95 N.J.Eq. 12 [122 A. 307]; Black & White Operating Co. v. Grosbart, 107 N.J.L. 63 [151 A. 630, 633]; State v. Passaic Co. Agr. Soc., 54 N.J.L. 260 [23 A. 680]. See also Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Horney, 5 Kan. 340, 347; Cary & Co. v. F. E. Satterlee & Co., 166 Minn. 507 [208 N.W. 408, 409]; arguendo, Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. (22 U.S.) 738, 830 [6 L.Ed. 204, 226].)

The federal courts have held that the provisions in the statute that “the parties may plead and manage their own cases” or by attorney ([Rev. Stats. § 747], 28 U.S.C.A. § 394) does not authorize a corporation to plead and manage its case personally or through an agent who is not an attorney of the court. (Mullin-Johnson Co. v. Penn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. (D.C. Cal. 9 Fed.Supp. 175; Brandstein v. White Lamps, Inc. (D.C.N.Y.) 20 Fed.Supp. 369.)

The two cases that have come to our attention which express a different view are A. Victor & Co. v. Sleininger, 255 App. Div. 673 [9 N.Y.S.2d 323], and Sellent-Repent Corp. v. Queens Borough Gas & El. Co., 160 Misc. 920 [290 N.Y.S. 887]. These eases. are against the weight of authority and are contrary to the New York decisions above cited. The Victor case advances the curious argument that a corporation should be permitted to appear in propria persona because (1) it might be too impoverished to employ a lawyer and (2) it might have a large claim it believed to be just but could find no lawyer who would accept employment, believing the case to be hopeless. In the Sellent-Bepent case a corporation was permitted to appear in person, the court stating that the act of its officer in appearing for it was an act of the corporation. The later New York cases have negated this concept.

The ease of Prudential Insurance Co. v. Small Claims Court, 76 Cal.App.2d 379 [173 P.2d 38, 167 A.L.R. 820], contains nothing contrary to what has been said in this opinion. Several of the cases above cited are mentioned with the comment that they deal with courts of record and with the general common-law principles that in the absence of statutory authority a cor[*900] poration cannot practice law even in its own behalf. The decision holds that by reason of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, to which reference is made, a corporation may appear in person in the small claims court.

Appeal dismissed.

Moore, P. J., and McComb, J., concurred.