Santos v. Silva

California Court of Appeal

Santos v. Silva

82 P. 981, 1 Cal. App. 616, 1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 176

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 21, 1905

DocketNo. 46.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 P. 981 (Santos v. Silva) 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

Santos v. Silva, 82 P. 981, 1 Cal. App. 616, 1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 176 (Cal. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

McLAUGHLIN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment resting on the judgment-roll alone. The only question presented is the sufficiency of the findings to support the judgment. The court made no express finding on the statute of limitations, pleaded as a defense to the first cause of action set forth in the complaint, and such failure is assigned as error. The findings, however, clearly show the date when this cause of action accrued, and from this it is apparent that the cause of action was not barred by the statute. This was. sufficient. (Ready v. McDonald, 128 Cal. 664, [79 Am. St. Rep. 76, 61 Pac. 272]; Paine v. San Bernardino, 143 Cal. 656,. [77 Pac. 659] ; Krasky v. Wollpert, 134 Cal. 338, [66 Pac. 309] ; Warren v. Hopkins, 110 Cal. 512, [42 Pac. 986]; Breeze v. Brooks, 97 Cal. 77, [31 Pac. 742] ; Baum v. Roper, 145 Cal. 116, [78 Pac. 466]; Eva v. Symans, 145 Cal. 202, [78 Pac. 648].)

*617 The court omitted to find touching a disputed item of $154.20, and the respondent, upon the argument, confessed error in this regard, and filed a written waiver and release of the judgment to the extent of this sum and the interest thereon, amounting to $26.03, and asked that the judgment, be modified accordingly and as so modified that the judgment, be affirmed. This course would render the error utterly harmless to appellant.

The judgment is therefore modified by striking out' said items, and by reducing the total amount thereof to the sum. of $790.73. As so modified the judgment is affirmed.

Chipman, P. J., and Buckles, J., concurred.

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

McLAUGHLIN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment resting on the judgment-roll alone. The only question presented is the sufficiency of the findings to support the judgment. The court made no express finding on the statute of limitations, pleaded as a defense to the first cause of action set forth in the complaint, and such failure is assigned as error. The findings, however, clearly show the date when this cause of action accrued, and from this it is apparent that the cause of action was not barred by the statute. This was. sufficient. (Ready v. McDonald, 128 Cal. 664, [79 Am. St. Rep. 76, 61 Pac. 272]; Paine v. San Bernardino, 143 Cal. 656,. [77 Pac. 659] ; Krasky v. Wollpert, 134 Cal. 338, [66 Pac. 309] ; Warren v. Hopkins, 110 Cal. 512, [42 Pac. 986]; Breeze v. Brooks, 97 Cal. 77, [31 Pac. 742] ; Baum v. Roper, 145 Cal. 116, [78 Pac. 466]; Eva v. Symans, 145 Cal. 202, [78 Pac. 648].)

*617 The court omitted to find touching a disputed item of $154.20, and the respondent, upon the argument, confessed error in this regard, and filed a written waiver and release of the judgment to the extent of this sum and the interest thereon, amounting to $26.03, and asked that the judgment, be modified accordingly and as so modified that the judgment, be affirmed. This course would render the error utterly harmless to appellant.

The judgment is therefore modified by striking out' said items, and by reducing the total amount thereof to the sum. of $790.73. As so modified the judgment is affirmed.

Chipman, P. J., and Buckles, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 P. 981, 1 Cal. App. 616, 1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santos-v-silva-calctapp-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack