Steiner v. Davis

California Court of Appeal

Steiner v. Davis

76 P.2d 159, 24 Cal. App. 2d 749, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 987

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 3, 1938

DocketCiv. No. 2102

StatusPublished

This text of 76 P.2d 159 (Steiner v. Davis) 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

Steiner v. Davis, 76 P.2d 159, 24 Cal. App. 2d 749, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 987 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

BARNARD, P. J.

This action involves three notes dated June 1, 1916, October 15, 1919, and March 26, 1920, respectively. Each note was payable one year after date, and in each instance the note contains the notation “Renewed Apr. 21, 1926 B. D. Davis”. The complaint was filed on September 10, 1930, and a demurrer thereto was sustained and judgment entered. The plaintiff has appealed and the only question presented is whether it must be held, as a matter of law, that the statute of limitations had run.

The material facts herein and the question of law raised are similar to, or identical with, those involved in Steiner, as Executrix, v. Davis, No. 2101, this day decided (ante, p. 692 [76 Pac. (2d) 157]). For the reasons given in that case and upon the authority thereof the judgment is reversed with directions to overrule the demurrer.

Marks, J., concurred.

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

BARNARD, P. J.

This action involves three notes dated June 1, 1916, October 15, 1919, and March 26, 1920, respectively. Each note was payable one year after date, and in each instance the note contains the notation “Renewed Apr. 21, 1926 B. D. Davis”. The complaint was filed on September 10, 1930, and a demurrer thereto was sustained and judgment entered. The plaintiff has appealed and the only question presented is whether it must be held, as a matter of law, that the statute of limitations had run.

The material facts herein and the question of law raised are similar to, or identical with, those involved in Steiner, as Executrix, v. Davis, No. 2101, this day decided (ante, p. 692 [76 Pac. (2d) 157]). For the reasons given in that case and upon the authority thereof the judgment is reversed with directions to overrule the demurrer.

Marks, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 P.2d 159, 24 Cal. App. 2d 749, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steiner-v-davis-calctapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack