Brown v. Waldo

California Court of Appeal

Brown v. Waldo

55 P.2d 240, 12 Cal. App. 2d 185, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 1004

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 28, 1936

DocketCiv. No. 9783

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 P.2d 240 (Brown v. Waldo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Waldo, 55 P.2d 240, 12 Cal. App. 2d 185, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 1004 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

EDMONDS, J. pro tem.

This action was brought to recover the deficiency remaining unpaid upon a note originally secured by a deed of trust after sale of the property. The defendant interposed a general demurrer upon the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because of the provisions of section 2924½, Civil Code, enacted in 1933. The demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, and the appeal is from the judgment subsequently entered. The note and deed of trust were executed October 24, 1929. The note became due three years thereafter.

In the case of Brown v. Fordon, 5 Cal. (2d) 226 [54 Pac. (2d) 712], it was held that the code section mentioned cannot apply retroactively to instruments executed before its effective date. The judgment is, therefore, reversed.

Houser, P. J., and York, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EDMONDS, J. pro tem.

This action was brought to recover the deficiency remaining unpaid upon a note originally secured by a deed of trust after sale of the property. The defendant interposed a general demurrer upon the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because of the provisions of section 2924½, Civil Code, enacted in 1933. The demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, and the appeal is from the judgment subsequently entered. The note and deed of trust were executed October 24, 1929. The note became due three years thereafter.

In the case of Brown v. Fordon, 5 Cal. (2d) 226 [54 Pac. (2d) 712], it was held that the code section mentioned cannot apply retroactively to instruments executed before its effective date. The judgment is, therefore, reversed.

Houser, P. J., and York, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 P.2d 240, 12 Cal. App. 2d 185, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-waldo-calctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack