Santos v. Silva

McLAUGHLIN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment resting on the judgment-roll alone. The only question presented is the sufficiency of the findings to support the judgment. The court made no express finding on the statute of limitations, pleaded as a defense to the first cause of action set forth in the complaint, and such failure is assigned as error. The findings, however, clearly show the date when this cause of action accrued, and from this it is apparent that the cause of action was not barred by the statute. This was. sufficient.

(Ready

v.

McDonald,

128 Cal. 664, [79 Am. St. Rep. 76, 61 Pac. 272];

Paine

v.

San Bernardino,

143 Cal. 656,. [77 Pac. 659] ;

Krasky

v.

Wollpert,

134 Cal. 338, [66 Pac. 309] ;

Warren

v.

Hopkins,

110 Cal. 512, [42 Pac. 986];

Breeze

v.

Brooks,

97 Cal. 77, [31 Pac. 742]

; Baum

v.

Roper,

145 Cal. 116, [78 Pac. 466];

Eva

v.

Symans,

145 Cal. 202, [78 Pac. 648].)

[617]

The court omitted to find touching a disputed item of $154.20, and the respondent, upon the argument, confessed error in this regard, and filed a written waiver and release of the judgment to the extent of this sum and the interest thereon, amounting to $26.03, and asked that the judgment, be modified accordingly and as so modified that the judgment, be affirmed. This course would render the error utterly harmless to appellant.