Taylor v. McLain
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The facts appear in the opinion of the court.
1Per curiam
1. When this case was here before, we held the action to be to redeem a mortgage, and that as such it was barred by the Statute of Limitations. (Taylor v. McLain, 60 Cal. 652.)
On the return of the cause to the court below the complaint was not amended, and it is the law of the case that the complaint is to redeem. On the last trial below the court held that more than four years had elapsed after the maturity of the indebtedness from plaintiff to defendant before this action was commenced.
There was, therefore, no pleading on the part of plaintiff on which the court was huthorized to base its…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Hall v. ArnottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Turner v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Raynor v. DrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Vance v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Wagg v. HerbertSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1907
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.