Opinion

Brown v. Waldo

  • 12 Cal. App. 2d 185
  • 55 P.2d 240
Court
California Court of Appeal
Filed
Feb 28, 1936
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 15.6%

The 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.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.