Patterson v. Doe
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. John Hunt, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
GRAY, C.
The judgment was for defendants, and plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
This action was commenced April 8, 1895, to recover twenty thousand dollars on a contract alleged to have been entered into between plaintiff and John S. Doe on or about the first day of ¡November, 1887, for a sale of the Invincible mine. The defendants pleaded subdivision 1 of section 339 of the Code of Civil Procedure, limiting the right of action “upon a contract, obligation, or liability not founded upon an instrument of writing” to two years; and at the conclusion of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lattin v. GilletteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Thomas v. Pacific Beach Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Chipman v. Morill & WebsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- McCarthy v. Mount Tecarte Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Todd v. Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
3Cited by8 opinions
- Benard v. WalkupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- MacKroth v. SladkyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
- Petty & Riddle, Inc. v. LuntUtah Supreme Court · 1942
- Nulsen v. NulsenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Howard v. Security Title Insurance & Guarantee Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.