Taliaferro v. Hoogs, 219 Cal. App. 2d 559 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963). · Go Syfert
Search
Taliaferro v. Hoogs, 219 Cal. App. 2d 559 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Harbour Vista v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. (calctapp, 2011-12-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harbour Vista v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 560 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 415 ].) Tme, the evidence need only establish a prima facie case (Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 363 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 82 ]), but a prima facie case is not equivalent to “a matter of course.” Prima facie evidence is still evidence and subject to some standards.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Proc., § 585 & Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 560 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 415 ].) Although some cases have recited a “general rule that sufficiency of the evidence [tendered in a default proceeding] cannot be reviewed on an appeal from a default judgment” (e.g., Uva v. Evans (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 356, 363 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 795 ]), that rule applies only “as to matters for which no proof is required by virtue of the admission by default of the allegations of the complaint.” (Ostling v. Loring, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 1745 .) “However, as to damages which, despite default, req…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barragan v. Banco Bch
Cal. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
Plaintiffs in a default judgment proceeding must prove they are entitled to the damages claimed. (§ 585; Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 560 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 415 ].) Evidence Code section 813 expressly states that the owner or spouse of the owner of property being valued is competent to express an opinion as to value.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Westport Oil Co. v. Garrison
Cal. Ct. App. · 1971 · confidence medium
The personal service requirement of Code of Civil Procedure *978 section 585 applied to cross-complaints (Taliaferro v. Hoogs, 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 560 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 415 ]), and to a cross-complaint against a party who had already appeared as a plaintiff in the action (Crofton v. Young, 48 Cal.App.2d 452, 457-458 [ 119 P.2d 1003 ]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morehouse v. Wanzo
Cal. Ct. App. · 1968 · confidence medium
(See Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 560 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 415 ]; and Riddle v. Fiano (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 684, 692-694 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 248 ]; Plott v. York (1939) 33 Cal.App.2d 460, 463-464 [ 91 P.2d 924 ]; but cf. Csordas v. United Slate Tile etc. Roofers (1960) 177 Cal. App.2d 184, 186 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 133 ].) Such speculation is precluded by the record in this case because of the recital in the judgment which reads, “and the Court on November 25, 1966, having ordered that plaintiff take nothing against the defendant Xavier Wastzo on the ground that the First Amended Complaint he…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morehouse v. Wanzo
Cal. Ct. App. · 1968 · confidence medium
(See Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 560 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 415 ]; and Riddle v. Fiano (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 684, 692-694 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 248 ]; Plott v. York (1939) 33 Cal.App.2d 460, 463-464 [ 91 P.2d 924 ]; but cf. Csordas v. United Slate Tile etc. Roofers (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 184, 186 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 133 ].) Such speculation is precluded by the record in this case because of the recital in the judgment which reads, "and the Court on November 25, 1966, having ordered that plaintiff take nothing against the defendant Xavier Wanzo on the ground that the First Amended Complaint herein…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City Bank of San Diego v. Ramage
Cal. Ct. App. · 1968 · confidence medium
(Nemeth v. Trumbull, supra; Reed Orchard Co. v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App. 648 [ 128 P. 9, 18 ]; Lester v. Beer, 74 Cal.App.2d Supp. 984 [ 168 P.2d 998 ].) *583 Evidence must be taken to prove the amount of damages in an action sounding in tort (Taliaferro v. Hoogs, 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 560 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 415]); likewise in an action to recover under a contract where the complaint seeks to recover an amount other than a specified amount set forth in the contract itself, or for breach of a contract that does not express the amount of liquidated damages.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bristol Convalescent Hospital v. Stone
Cal. Ct. App. · 1968 · confidence medium
Co., 150 Cal. 647 [ 89 P. 615 ].) The setting aside of a judgment obtained on an unvacated default properly entered results merely in the rendition of such another judgment as the plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence might support. {Howard Greer etc. Originals v. Capritti, 35 Cal.2d 886 [ 221 P.2d 937 ].) Evidence must be taken to prove the amount of damages in an action sounding in tort {Taliaferro v. Hoogs, 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 560 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 415 ]); likewise in an action to recover under a contract where the complaint seeks to recover an amount other than a specified amount set forth in …
discussed Cited "see" Speaker v. Andrews CA2/5
Cal. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: accord · confidence high
(Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 900 .) The issue of damages, however, is different. “‘Plaintiffs in a default judgment proceeding must prove they are entitled to the damages claimed.’ [Citations.]” (Kim, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 288 ; accord, Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 560 [default judgment can be entered only on proof to court of damage sustained, citing Code Civ.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
E. A. TALIAFERRO, Cross-Complainant and Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM H. HOOGS Et Al., Cross-Defendants and Respondents
Civ. 20988.
California Court of Appeal.
Aug 23, 1963.
219 Cal. App. 2d 559
1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 2407
E. A. Taliaferro, in pro. per., for Cross-complainant and Appellant., No appearance for Cross-defendants and Respondents.
Draper.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
DRAPER, P. J.

This action was filed in the municipal court. Plaintiff Landisman held $360 belonging to Mrs. Hardison. He interpleaded defendants Taliaferro, formerly husband and wife, alleging that each claimed the Hardison money. Mr. Taliaferro cross-complained for large damages, and the case was transferred to superior court. That court denied cross-complainant’s motion for entry of default of cross-defendant Hoogs. The default of cross-defendant Hardison was entered by the clerk, but after taking evidence on cross-complainant’s application for judgment, the court granted dismissal as to her “for failure of proof.” Taliaferro appeals.

The court properly refused to enter Hoogs’ default. He had been served only by mail. He did become attorney of record for Mrs. Taliaferro, but appellant’s contention that this constituted a voluntary appearance (Code Civ. Proc.,[*560] § 416) by him as a cross-defendant is absurd. Thus default could follow only upon personal service (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 585, 411). Nothing in the record supports the claim of appellant’s brief that Hoogs had agreed to accept service of process by mail. It is unnecessary to determine whether the order is appealable.

Although Mrs. Hardison is made a cross-defendant (with plaintiff Landisman, the former Mrs. Taliaferro and her attorney Hoogs), none of the cross-complaint’s five counts is specifically directed against her. Only the first even approaches stating a claim against her. Its essence is that she conspired with the other defendants to withhold sums due to Taliaferro, thus rendering him unable to pay amounts due upon a note and causing him to lose the property securing it. He asks $8,000 damages to compensate for this loss, and $10,000 as exemplary damages.

Obviously, default judgment on those claims can be entered only upon proof to the court of the damage sustained (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. 2; Lynch v. Bencini, 17 Cal.2d 521 [110 P.2d 662]). We have no record of any evidence offered by appellant, and thus must presume that no damage was shown (Liljefelt v. Blum, 33 Cal.App. 721 [166 P. 384]).

The order denying default and the judgment of dismissal are affirmed.

Devine, J., and Salsman, J., concurred.