Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 Cal. 127

Hays v. Ewing

California Supreme Court

Decided July 12, 1886

California Supreme Court · decided 1886-07-12

The action in which the negligence of the defendant is alleged to have occurred was founded on a promissory note, executed on December 1, 1870, and .payable one day after date. The action was commenced July 8,1881. The answer set up the statute of limitations as a defense. On the trial, the court sustained the defense and dismissed the action.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-07-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 1992 · most notably 6 Cal. 3d 176 - Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971), 2 Cal. 4th 606 - Laird v. Blacker (1992)

26 state decisions

80188618901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McKinstry, J.

¶1This action is against an attorney at law for neglect of duty in the management of a certain action brought by the present plaintiff against Cogswell et al. The defendant demurred generally, and also on the special ground that the complaint shows that the statutory limitation has run against the alleged cause of action.

¶2The judgment for defendant in Hayes v. Cogswell was made November 19, 1881. This action was commenced June 16, 1884, and so far as it is based on any neglect of the defendant prior to the judgment of November, 1881, was barred by section 339 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶3The complaint herein avers that the plaintiff, subsequent to and within one year after the judgment in Hayes v. Cogswell, demanded of the defendant herein that he should take an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in that action.

¶4But the facts stated in this complaint show that an appeal would have been of no avail.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

¶6Myrick, J., and Ross, J., concurred.

/70/cal/127 · .json · Public domain