# Brown v. Waldo

> California Court of Appeal · February 28, 1936 · 12 Cal. App. 2d 185

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5652372

## Case

- **Full name:** A. G. BROWN v. ROLLIN F. WALDO
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** February 28, 1936
- **Citations:** 12 Cal. App. 2d 185; 55 P.2d 240; 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 1004
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Edmonds
- **Judges:** Edmonds
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5652372

## Opinion text

EDMONDS, J. pro tem.
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 2924½, 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. Fordon, 5 Cal. (2d) 226 [ 54 Pac. (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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5652372. Public record. Not legal advice.