Lowell v. Kier
50 Cal. 646
Opinion
The action to compel the specific performance of the agreement mentioned in the complaint was brought within the period limited for its commencement against Whipple, had he lived.
It is not barred merely because it was not brought within one year after the issuance of letters to the defendants. [648] The first clause of section 353 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while it may under some circumstances prolong the time originally limited, cannot operate in any case to shorten it.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lowell v. Kier, 50 Cal. 646 (Cal. 1875).
50 Cal. 646 (Lowell v. Kier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Berger v. O'HEARN
264 P.2d 10 (California Supreme Court, 1953)
McCormick v. González Martínez
49 P.R. 460 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1936)
Estate of Shinoe v. Shinoe
250 N.W. 505 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1933)
Viau v. Viau
207 P. 39 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Hyde v. Heller
39 P. 249 (Washington Supreme Court, 1895)