Clunin v. First Federal Trust Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, C. J.
The action was upon a promissory note for $3,000, executed by Jeremiah Lynch to the plaintiff, on April 20, 1909, payable cm demand.
By demurrer to the complaint, and also by way of answer, the defendant interposed the defense that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The court found in favor of the defendant on this defense, and rendered judgment accordingly.
[1] Where a promise to pay money is payable on demand the statute of limitations begins to run thereon at the date of its execution. (O’Neil v. Magner, 81 Cal. 631 [15 Am. St. Rep. 88, 22 Pac. 876]; Jones v. Nicholl, 82…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Bell v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Minifie v. RowleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Biddel v. BrizzolaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- McCormick v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Southern Pacific Co. v. ProsserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Western Coal & Mining Co. v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Searles v. GonzalezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- People Ex Rel. Webb v. Honey Lake Valley Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Trigg v. ArnottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. McRaeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.