Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided March 9, 1928No. Docket No. L.A. 9249PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment of nonsuit entered after both sides had concluded the introduction of their evidence. The single issue presented is the plea of the statute of limitations, subdivision 2 of section 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Eespondents’ statement of the facts and of the question involved is accurate and as follows:

“September 22, 1917—Eloise Wright Porter was granted a life estate in the property in question, with the reversion in plaintiffs’ predecessors.
“November 4, 1919—-Eloise Wright Porter deeded parcel 1 to the defendant. This deed made no mention…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Newport v. HattonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Akley v. BassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Westcott v. MeekerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
  4. Pryor v. WinterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  5. Bartlow v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1909

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Faus v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Rhoda v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  3. Triplett v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  4. Dieterich International Truck Sales, Inc. v. J. S. & J. Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1992
  5. Estate of BryanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

4 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