Morrell v. Morgan
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Modoc, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMyrick, J.
This is an action for damages growing out of the seduction of plaintiff by defendant.
1. The defendant demurred on the ground that the alleged seduction is averred to have taken place in May, 1881, and the action not having been brought until March, 1883, it is barred by section 340, subdivision 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the commencement of the action the plaintiff was a minor, under eighteen years of age. The statute above referred to must be read in connection with section 352 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and so reading it, the action was not barred.
2. The second ground of…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Newhall v. HatchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Keidatz v. AlbanyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Pacific Portland Cement Co. v. ReineckeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
- Kirsch v. KirschCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.