Erkenbrecher

Erkenbrecher v. Grant

Good Law
187 Cal. 7·1921 Cal. LEXIS 321·200 P. 641
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 31, 1921L. A. No. 5921.California2,171 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shurtleff, J.

This appeal is from a judgment in defendant’s favor in an action brought against him to en force contribution as a co-guarantor with plaintiff and others of three certain promissory notes.

The defense urged in the answer and at the trial, and insisted upon here, is that the statute of limitations has barred the action.

The case was heard by the district court of appeal (first district, division one), and the judgment of the lower court affirm'ed. Thereafter the cause was transferred to this court, and the judgment again affirmed. The judgment here, and likewise the judgment of the district court of appeal, was grounded upon the assumption, the record failing to show the date of the filing of the original complaint, that the action was commenced January 28, 1918, the date upon which the amended complaint was filed. The appellant, upon discovering this omission, sought a diminution of the record, and to that end produced and filed here a certified copy of the original complaint, at the same time moving, which motion was granted, for an order vacating the said judgment of this court. The record, as thus corrected, establishes, which is a controlling circumstance, that the date of…

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.