Churchill

Churchill v. Pacific Improvement Co.

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 983·96 Cal. 490·31 P. 560
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 29, 1892No. 14437California936 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Paterson, J.

—A judgment in favor of defendant on demurrer to the complaint was entered in the court below, and plaintiff has appealed therefrom. The question is, whether the cause of action stated in the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.

It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant is engaged in the business of keeping a public inn; that on April 1, 1887, the plaintiff and his wife were guests in said inn, and plaintiff had taken there with him as such guest, and placed under the care of the defendant, as innkeeper, certain described personal property belonging to him, of the value of $3,492; that on the night of said first day of April, the inn and plaintiff’s said property were, through the negligence of the defendant, destroyed by fire. Another and separate cause of action is set forth in the complaint, but it is the same as the first, except in two particulars, namely, it is alleged that a portion of the property, valued at $3,040, was the personal effects of the plaintiff’s wife, and that before the commencement of the action she assigned to the plaintiff all claim for damages against the defendant. The complaint was filed March 5, 1890.

The defendant filed a…

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.