Southern Pacific Co. v. Prosser
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County. J. E. Prewett, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBeatty, C. J.
This is an action to foreclose a chattel mortgage given to secure the promissory note of the defendant. The complaint was filed more than four years after the maturity of the note, and the superior court held, on demurrer, that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The judgment of the superior court was reversed in Department on the ground that the note was taken out of the operation of the statute by a new promise or acknowledgment in writing (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 360), but at the same time it was held that the right to foreclose the mortgage was barred. As to this latter…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- McCormick v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Hoag v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Foorman v. WallaceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- London & San Francisco Bank v. BandmannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Biddel v. BrizzolaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- Western Coal & Mining Co. v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Fontana Land Co. v. LaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Newhall v. HatchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Concannon v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Rodgers v. ByersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.