gno.law

Turley v. Roberts

California Court of Appeal · Docket No. 5256. · 1929-05-21 · Published · 277 P. 878 · 99 Cal. App. 71 · 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 378

ANNA LeVAN TURLEY Et Al., Respondents, v. CHARLES P. ROBERTS, Appellant

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Trial judge
Walton J. Wood
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
John D. Works (author)

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 — Works

WORKS, P. J.

In this action for the recovery of money loaned judgment went for plaintiffs and defendant apneals.

It is contended that the superior court was without jurisdiction of the cause, upon the theory that the evidence disclosed that the amount loaned was but $250, and that this sum was less than $300, the latter amount representing the limit of the jurisdiction of the superior court. The complaint alleged, however, that one of the plaintiffs had loaned to defendant the sum of $325. That allegation fixed the jurisdiction in the superior court (Dashiell v. Slingerland, 60 Cal. 653).

Appellant pleaded the bar of the statute of limitations. The court found against him on the question. He now insists upon the point, but it is plain that the finding is amply supported by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed. Appellant is fined the sum of twenty-five dollars for the prosecution of a frivolous appeal.

Craig, J:, and Thompson (Ira F.), J., concurred.

A petition by respondents to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on July 18, 1929.

Preston, J., dissented.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by