Gale v. McDaniel

California Supreme Court

Gale v. McDaniel

13 P. 871, 72 Cal. 334, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 530

California Supreme Court·Decided May 24, 1887·No. No. 12081·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Hayne, C.

The action is for maliciously destroying by fire a stable and saloon, and the personal property contained therein. More than three years elapsed before the commencement of the action. Whether it be considered as an action for trespass upon real property, or for injuring personal property, it is barred by limitation. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 338.) The fact that plaintiff only recently discovered who did the wrong makes no difference. The demurrer was properly sustained, and the judgment should be affirmed.

Belcher, C. C., and Foote, C., concurred.

The Court.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Hayne, C.

The action is for maliciously destroying by fire a stable and saloon, and the personal property contained therein. More than three years elapsed before the commencement of the action. Whether it be considered as an action for trespass upon real property, or for injuring personal property, it is barred by limitation. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 338.) The fact that plaintiff only recently discovered who did the wrong makes no difference. The demurrer was properly sustained, and the judgment should be affirmed.

Belcher, C. C., and Foote, C., concurred.

The Court.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment is affirmed.

Gale v. McDaniel, 13 P. 871, 72 Cal. 334, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 530 (Cal. 1887).

Pincite

13 P. 871 (Gale v. McDaniel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related