Opinion

Auzerais v. Naglee

  • 74 Cal. 60
  • 15 P. 371
  • 1887 Cal. LEXIS 746
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Nov 5, 1887
Status
Published
Author
Temple
On the bench
Paterson, Searls, Temple, Thornton
Cited by
73 cases

The opinion

Temple, J., dissenting.

— I dissent. Under our statute, a custom which would prove an agreement to pay more than legal interest is against law. I also think, that assent to an account stated does not take the account from the operation of the statute of limitations. *73 The cases which hold that the account stated is a new promise, and the statute begins to run from that time, have no force here, where the acknowledgment must be in writing.,

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.