Dougall v. Schulenberg
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion. The judgment should be reversed, as the statute of limitations was a bar to the action.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion. The judgment should be reversed, as the statute of limitations was a bar to the action. (Palmer v. Shaw, 16 Cal. 93; see Tynan v. Walker, 35 Cal. 634.) The action being founded upon two instruments in writing executed out of the state, the statutory bar of two years presumptively applies, and the burden rests on plaintiff to repel this presumption. (Bass v. Berry, 51 Cal. 264.) Statutes of limitations are to be strictly construed. Courts cannot make an…
1Opinion of the Court
Temple, C.—
This action is based upon two promissory notes dated upon the same day and alike in every respect, except that one is made payable six months after date and the other twelve months after date. The following is a copy of one of them.
“$500. Windsor, Ont., March 5, 1884.
“ Six months after date, for value received, we promise to pay to the order of Duncan Dougall, at the Canadian Bank of Commerce here, the sum of five hundred dollars. “ George Campbell,
“ A. B. Schulenberg.”
It is averred in the complaint that at the time of the execution of the note and at the time when it became due…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Redington v. CornwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by18 opinions
- Irving Nat. Bank v. LawCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- McKee v. DoddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Penziner v. West American Finance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933
- Dew v. AppleberryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Young v. the Young Holdings Corp., Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 1938
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.