Trigg v. Arnott
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.
On November 16, 1935, plaintiff instituted this action against the defendants to recover the sum of $1857.29 'principal and interest and $125 attorney’s fee upon a promissory note. The answer of the defendant, M. C. Mac-Donnell, set up the defense that the cause of action alleged in the complaint was barred as to her by the statute of limitations—subdivision 1 of section 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Trial of the action resulted in the entry of a judgment in favor of the above-mentioned defendant. The basis of the judgment is a finding made by the trial court sustaining the defense of…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Bogart v. George K. Porter Co.California Supreme Court · 1924
- Belloc v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Clunin v. First Federal Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
- California Savings & Loan Society v. CulverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- O'Neil v. MagnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Clayton v. GardnerNevada Supreme Court · 1991
- In Re Crystal Properties, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Hunt v. SmythCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- Talbot v. GadiaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Barron v. BoyntonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1940
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.