Gale v. McDaniel
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Butte County. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
The action is for maliciously destroying by fire a stable and saloon, and the personal property contained therein. More than three years elapsed before the commencement of the action. Whether it be considered as an action for trespass upon real property, or for injuring personal property, it is barred by limitation. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 338.) The fact that plaintiff only recently discovered who did the wrong makes no difference. The demurrer was properly sustained, and the judgment should be affirmed.
Belcher, C. C., and Foote, C., concurred.
The Court.
For the reasons given in the…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
- Pashley v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Lightner Mining Co. v. LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Kimball v. Pacific Gas Elec. Co.California Supreme Court · 1934
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.