Brown v. Waldo

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 9783 · 1936-02-28 · Published · 12 Cal. App. 2d 185 · 55 P.2d 240

Area: civil

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

12 Cal.App.2d 185 (1936) A. G. BROWN, Appellant, v. ROLLIN F. WALDO, Respondent.

Civ. No. 9783. California Court of Appeals. Second Appellate District, Division One.

February 28, 1936. Louis Ferrari, Edmund Nelson, Howard Waterman, Freston & Files and Ralph E. Lewis for Appellant.

Donald M. Keith for Respondent.

Edmonds, J. pro tem.

[1] This action was brought to recover the deficiency remaining unpaid upon a note originally secured by a deed of trust after sale of the property. The defendant interposed a general demurrer upon the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because of the provisions of section 2924 1/2, Civil Code, enacted in 1933. The demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, and the appeal is from the judgment subsequently entered.

The note and deed of trust were executed October 24, 1929. The note became due three years thereafter.

In the case of Brown v. Ferdon, 5 Cal.2d 226 [54 PaCal.2d 712], it was held that the code section mentioned cannot apply retroactively to instruments executed before its effective date. The judgment is, therefore, reversed.

Houser, P. J., and York, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Brown v. Waldo Civ. No. 9783 · 1936-02-28
Brown v. Ferdon L. A. 14775 · 1936-01-28