National Cycle Manufacturing Co. v. San Diego Cycle Co.
Before: Allen
Synopsis
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, and from an order denying a new trial. E. S. Torrance, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
ALLEN, P. J.
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendants other than Easton, and from an order denying a new trial.
This appeal presents various interesting questions, all of which are ably presented and insisted upon by counsel for appellant. An examination of the record, however, discloses that, were the correctness of appellant’s position conceded as to all of the questions involved other than that of the statute of limitations, nevertheless the finding of the court in relation! to such bar of the statute is sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s recovery, if the finding in relation thereto has support from the evidence. With this in view, no good result would follow a detailed investigation into and determination of the other questions presented.
The action is based upon an account for goods sold and delivered during the year 1894. Assuming, as before stated, that appellant is warranted in its contention that a partnership existed between the defendants and the liability for the
[113]
price and value of the goods sold attached jointly to all the defendants, nevertheless the two year bar of section 339 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the absence of any acknowledgment in writing of the indebtedness, attached in the year 1896. There is, however, in the record certain letters signed by the San Diego Cycle Company, claimed by plaintiff to be the copartnership, which may fairly be construed as acknowledgments upon the part of the San Diego Cycle Company of its liability. All of these written acknowledgments, however, are of date preceding January 1, 1896. This action was commenced in April, 1899.
The court finds all of the accounts barred by the provisions of section 339, and the question presented is as to the effect of such acknowledgment in writing so made by the debtor as affecting his continuing liability on account of the indebtedness. It is established that from such an acknowledgment an implied promise to pay arises. Section 360, Code of Civil Procedure, provides: “No acknowledgment or promise is sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract, by which to take the case out of the operation of this title, unless the same is contained in some writing, signed by the party to be charged thereby.” In
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)