Norton v. Zellerbach (1883) · DecisionDepot

Norton v. Zellerbach

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court May 12, 1883 No. No. 7724Published

Before: Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a nonsuit based on the statute of limitations was improper because the record failed to establish when the alleged embezzlement or conversion occurred.

Issues

Whether the action was barred by the statute of limitations.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is impossible, then, to determine when the statute of limitations commenced running.”

“In this state of the case we cannot say that the action was barred by the statute when it was commenced, and the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.”

Synopsis

Trover and Conversion—Limitations—Nonsuit.—In a civil action for embezzling or converting personal property, where the time of the alleged grievance does not appear by the pleadings or testimony, a nonsuit based on the statute of limitations is not to be sustained.

THORNTON, J. In this case a nonsuit was granted on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The action was brought for embezzling and unlawfully alienating and converting certain personal property belonging to [182]the estate of a deceased person. We have examined the pleadings in the cause and testimony in the bill of exceptions, and are unable to ascertain when the embezzling or unlawful alienation or conversion occurred. It is impossible, then, to determine when the statute of limitations commenced running. In this state of the case we cannot say that the action was barred by the statute when it was commenced, and the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

We concur: Myriek, J.; Sharpstein, J.

Norton v. Zellerbach

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief