Legal Opinion

Shuler v. Corl

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 18, 1918No. Civ. No. 2592PublishedCited by 12 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtJames, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover a sum of money in excess of five thousand dollars as compensation for services alleged to have been rendered to the defendant. A demurrer was sustained to the second amended complaint; plaintiff declined to amend further. Judgment followed in favor of the defendant, from which judgment this appeal is taken.

By the demurrer the defendant particularly urged that the alleged causes of action set out in the amended complaint were barred by both the two year and four year limitation. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 337, 339.) It was further urged that the contract as claimed by…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Lord v. GoldbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Norton v. LarcoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  3. Speeder Cycle Co. v. TeeterIndiana Court of Appeals · 1897
  4. Christensen v. Pacific Coast Borax Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Santa Rosa National Bank v. BarnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.California Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Ruinello v. MurrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Rape v. Mobile & O. R. R.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Seifert v. Arnold Bros.California Court of Appeal · 1934
  5. Hansen v. FettigNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1970

7 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