Meza

Meza v. Sword

Good Law
136 Cal. App. 292·1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1041·28 P.2d 684
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 17, 1934Docket No. 7825.California1,749 words

Opinion

dissent Opinion

Conrey, J.

I dissent. Without reference to the other questions presented for decision, I think that this action is barred by limitation of time. The right to maintain an action for damages for a death caused by wrongful act is of statutory origin. By act approved April 26, 1862 (Stats. 1862, p. 447), the liability for such damages Was created. It contained a proviso “that every such action shall be commenced within two years after the death of such deceased person”. In 1872 this legislation was transferred into the hew Code of Civil Procedure, section 377, without the proviso, but the same two-year limitation was continued by placing the. same in subdivision 4 of section 339 of that code. By amendment in 1873 this became subdivision 3 of the section. In the year 1905, said subdivision 3 was stricken from the section, and at the same time the period of limitation was reduced to one year by placing such actions in the list of actions subject to the one-year limitation, as provided in section 340, Code of Civil Procedure, in subdivision 3 thereof. As thus amended these provisions of law were in force at the time of commencement of the present action.

In Benjamin v. Eldridge, 50 Cal. 612 , an…

lead Opinion

York, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after sustaining demurrer to plaintiffs’ complaint without leave to amend.

This action is brought by the heirs of Federico Meza, deceased, against the stockholders of Higgins Estate, a corporation, in damages for the wrongful death of said deceased. The death occurred on the twenty-sixth day of March, 1929, and the complaint was filed on the twenty-second day of October, 1930.

The defendants James 0. Sword, Margaret A. Kearney and Teresa Sword interposed a demurrer on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and also that said cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations as found in subdivision 3, section 340, Code of Civil Procedure.

The demurrer was sustained without leave to amend.

Respondents in their brief admit that prior to November 4, 1930, upon which date, by vote of the people of the state of California, the constitutional provision creating stockholders’ liability in a corporation was expressly repealed, an action could be maintained against stockholders for damages for the wrongful death of a person caused by the corporation, even in the absence…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.