Glashoff v. Glashoff
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtPeek, J.
Plaintiffs’ complaint to foreclose a note and mortgage dated January 5, 1929, and due five years after date, was filed May 16, 1940. Defendants’ demurrer, on the ground that the complaint on its face showed that the action was barred by subdivision 1, section 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was overruled. The defendants then answered plaintiffs’ complaint alleging that fact as a separate defense. At the conclusion of plaintiffs’ ease defendants’ motion for a nonsuit on the same grounds, was granted.
From the judgment plaintiffs appeal, raising the question: Was the action barred by…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Roth Drug, Inc. v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Commonwealth v. BarneyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Hart v. City of Beverly HillsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Estate of Coffee v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- In Re SekuguchiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ware v. HellerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Pepper v. BishopCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Zastrow v. ZastrowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Hansen v. Kootenai County Board of County CommissionersIdaho Supreme Court · 1970
- Hansen v. Kootenai County Board of County CommissionersIdaho Supreme Court · 1970
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.