San Leandro Can. Co., Inc. v. Perillo
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.
The plaintiff commenced an action to recover moneys from the defendants. The defendants interposed a demurrer which pleaded that the plaintiff’s second amended complaint did not state facts sufficient; that plaintiff's alleged cause of action was barred by the pro visions of subdivision 4 of section 338, section 359, and subdivision 1 of section 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and certain other matters not necessary to be stated. The demurrer was sustained, the plaintiff declined to amend, and thereupon judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. From that judgment the plaintiff has…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- The Edward Barron Estate Co. v. the Woodruff Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
- Wickersham v. CrittendenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Western States Life Ins. Co. v. LockwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Dean v. ShingleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Bassett v. FairchildCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- San Leandro Canning Co., Inc. v. PerilloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Brewis v. ToffelmierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Dunbar v. RedfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936