Peterson v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co.

169 P. 239, 35 Cal. App. 103, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 381
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedOctober 23, 1917
DocketCiv. No. 2023.
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 169 P. 239 (Peterson v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co.) 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
Peterson v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co., 169 P. 239, 35 Cal. App. 103, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 381 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

THE COURT.

In this action the plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant, as surety upon the official bond of a notary public, damages sustained by plaintiff’s intestate through his reliance upon a false certificate of acknowledgment issued by said notary. The defendant both by demurrer to the complaint and by answer pleaded section 338, subdivision 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring an action upon a liability created by statute other than a penalty or forfeiture to be brought within three years of its accrual—■ it appearing upon the face of the complaint that the present action was commenced some five years after the making and issuing of the false acknowledgment.

The trial court took the view that this section and subdivision of the code was not applicable to an action upon the official bond of a notary, but the supreme court in a very recent case {Norton v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co., 176 Cal. 212, [168 Pac. 16]), following other cases decided in this jurisdiction in which actions upon official bonds were involved, held, in an action brought upon this identical bond, *104 that this provision of the statute of limitations was to he given application in this class of cases.

It follows that the trial court erred in overruling the demurrer of the plaintiff. Upon the authority of Norton v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co., 176 Cal. 212, [168 Pac. 16], the judgment is reversed.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on December 20, 1917.

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

Related

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Lindholm
66 F.2d 56 (Ninth Circuit, 1933)
Griffith v. State of Arizona
20 P.2d 289 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1933)
Haswell v. Costellenos
14 P.2d 846 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Steinbrenner v. Elder
260 P. 725 (Montana Supreme Court, 1927)
Hellwig v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co.
179 P. 222 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
169 P. 239, 35 Cal. App. 103, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-title-guaranty-surety-co-calctapp-1917.