Legal Opinion

Feeney v. Hinckley

California Supreme Court

Decided November 6, 1901No. S.F. No. 1845PublishedCited by 37 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

— The action was brought to recover an unpaid balance due upon a judgment. It was commenced more than five years and less than six years after the entry of the judgment. This fact appearing upon the face of the complaint, defendant urged by demurrer that the cause of action was barred by section 336 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that an action upon a judgment or decree must be brought within five years. The court sustained the demurrer, and entered judgment accordingly, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted. At the time of the entry of the judgment sued upon, the law…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Brown v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Webb v. . BuckelewNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
  3. Harris v. BarnhartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. In re Estate of BlytheCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Naftzger v. GreggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

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

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. NakanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Sewell v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Sewell v. PriceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Cook v. CeasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

32 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