Legal Opinion

Southern California Enterprises, Inc. v. D. N. & E. Walter & Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 25, 1947No. Civ. 15385PublishedCited by 45 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilson, J.

To adopt the theory advanced by respondent and accepted by the trial court .relative to the purpose of the statute of limitations would be to ordain the statute as an instrument for the protection of fraud instead of for its prevention. The action is upon a breach of a warranty made by respondent upon the sale of carpet. If it should be held that the statute began to run at the date of the sale of the carpet and not when it had been ascertained and established as a fact that the warranty had been breached, not only would appellant be deprived of its right to present its cause of action on the…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Mary Pickford Co. v. Bayly Bros., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Lattin v. GilletteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Woods Lumber Co. v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Firth v. RichterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  5. Woodward-Wight & Co. v. Engel Land & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1909

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

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIVCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Lantzy v. Centex HomesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co.California Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2008

40 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