Legal Opinion

Wilson v. Walters

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 21, 1944No. Civ. 14417PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DRAPEAU, J. pro tem.

In this action to renew a judgment, complaint was filed three months more than five years after the judgment was entered. Unless the five-year period of the statute of limitations was extended, the cause is barred under the provisions of section 336 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

During the five-year period, the defendant made a series of $25 payments on account, commencing September, 1937, and ending in March, 1939, amounting to a total payment of $450 on a judgment for $8,858.75. This fact, standing alone, would not toll the statute. (Purdy v. Maree, 31 Cal.App.2d 125…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. McCormick v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  2. Southern Pacific Co. v. ProsserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Concannon v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Rodgers v. ByersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  5. State Loan & Trust Co. v. CochranCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Western Coal & Mining Co. v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. In re FinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  3. North Star Development Corp. v. WolfswinkelCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1985
  4. Blazier v. Western Pipe & Steel Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1946
  5. In re HallDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1946

1 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