Legal Opinion

Hasman v. Canman

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 27, 1933No. Docket No. 4858PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, J., pro tem.

The action is to recover a balance claimed due upon a promissory note executed by defendants and payable to plaintiff. The case' was tried without a jury and judgment going for the plaintiff the defendants prosecute this appeal.

The sole point involved is the statute of limitations. It is claimed that the action is barred under the provisions of section 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure, limiting the time within which an action may be commenced upon any contract, obligation or liability founded upon an instrument in writing.

The date of the promissory note in question is…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Brownrigg v. DefreesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Trinity County Bank v. HaasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Stalder v. Riverside Groves Etc. Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Kleinsorge v. KleinsorgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Caffaro v. RomaniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. CARLTON BROWNE & CO. INC. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  2. Carberry v. TrenthamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  3. Wattles v. AgelastosMichigan Court of Appeals · 1970
  4. Lewis v. SilveiraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API