Legal Opinion

Trigg v. Arnott

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 28, 1937No. Civ. 2015PublishedCited by 25 opinions

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

  1. Bogart v. George K. Porter Co.California Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Belloc v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  3. Clunin v. First Federal Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
  4. California Savings & Loan Society v. CulverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  5. O'Neil v. MagnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Clayton v. GardnerNevada Supreme Court · 1991
  2. In Re Crystal Properties, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  3. Hunt v. SmythCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  4. Talbot v. GadiaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  5. Barron v. BoyntonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1940

20 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