Legal Opinion

Harris v. Fitting

California Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1937No. L. A. 16253PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Plaintiffs acquired ownership of a $2,200 note and mortgage which had been executed by defendants Fitting on August 10, 1928 and had become due and payable August 10, 1931. On July 30, 1936, plaintiffs filed this action to foreclose the mortgage. Defendants Fitting demurred on the ground that the cause was barred by section 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the four-year statute of limitations. The demurrer was overruled, whereupon said defendants filed an answer which admitted execution of the note and mortgage and the balance due thereon but again pleaded, as an affirmative…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Heron v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Evans v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Christina v. McLoughlinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Brosnahan v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Metropolitan Water Dist. v. MarquardtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Ware v. HellerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  4. Huening v. March Fong EuCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  5. Bakersfield Home Building Co. v. J. K. McAlpine Land & Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API