Dore v. Thornburgh
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Fitzgerald, C.
— This action was commenced by plaintiff on the fourth day of October, 1888, to recover upon a judgment given against the defendant on the ninth day of May, 1885, in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, in England.
The complaint is demurred to on the grounds, — 1. That it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; 2. That the alleged cause of action is barred by the provisions of section 339 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The demurrer was sustained by the court below, and upon plaintiff failing to amend his complaint, judgment *66final was…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Piller v. S. Pac. R.R.California Supreme Court · 1877
- Wallace v. EldredgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Klockenbaum v. PiersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Reed v. EldredgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Freeman v. DonohoeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Branting v. Salt Lake CityUtah Supreme Court · 1915
- Gould v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Manco Contracting Co.(WLL) v. BezdikianCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.