Christina v. McLoughlin
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
BISHOP, J., pro tem.
—• From the judgment dismissing his complaint, following an order sustaining demurrer thereto without leave to amend, plaintiff .has appealed. We find plaintiff’s cause of action for a deficiency judgment to be barred by the statute of limitations, despite the moratorium acts relied upon, and as the bar of the statute was properly presented by demurrer, the judgment of dismissal should be affirmed.
We take the facts of the case, of course, from the amended complaint. The defendant had agreed, in the note upon which plaintiff sues, to pay $22,500 and interest on March 19,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Consolidated Reservoir & Power Co. v. ScarboroughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Frantz v. MallenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Kuenzell v. California Mutual Building & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ware v. HellerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Bakersfield Home Building Co. v. J. K. McAlpine Land & Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938
- Harris v. FittingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Massey-Ferguson Credit Corp. v. CasaulongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Glashoff v. GlashoffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.