Thompson

Thompson v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co.

Good Law
1928 Cal. LEXIS 834·203 Cal. 578·265 P. 220
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 9, 1928Docket No. L.A. 9249.California1,453 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Preston, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment of nonsuit entered after both sides had concluded the introduction of their evidence. The single issue presented is the plea of the statute of limitations, subdivision 2 of section 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Eespondents’ statement of the facts and of the question involved is accurate and as follows:

Appellants state their position in these words: “Plaintiffs’ right to the possession of parcels 1 and 2 matured only upon the termination of Eloise Wright Porter’s life estate and with it ripened into maturity their cause of action against the railroad company for continuing to use and occupy parcels 1 and 2 beyond the period limited by their grant.”

Respondents counter with this statement of their position: “But appellants’ action here did not depend on the right to possession. Therein is the distinction. Appellants had no right to possession after the railroad was constructed. The only action they ever had was for damages.” Again respondents assert: ‘' True, the life tenant had given her assent to the use contemplated, but in going in under that assent the railroad necessarily trespassed on the rights of the reversioners and…

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.