Allen v. Allen
Citations
- 95 Cal. 184
- 16 L.R.A. 646
- 30 P. 213
- 1892 Cal. LEXIS 801
Syllabus
<p>Statute of Limitation's — Cause of Action Barred in Another State — Pleading— Construction of Code. — It is not necessary for a defendant who claims that the cause of action is barred by limitation, under section 361 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set out the facts upon which he relies to show that the cause of action arose in another state, and that under the laws of that state it would be barred by the statute of limitations, but it is sufficient if he states generally that the cause of action is barred by that section. The rule of pleading established by section 458 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to section 361 of that code.</p> <p>Deed as Security for Loan— Contracts Made out of State — Construction — Conflict of Laws. —In the construction of a deed to land in this state, executed out of the state, as security for the repayment of money advanced, the laws of this,state existing at the time the deed was executed must be read as a, part thereof, and must govern the right to foreclose-and to redeem, although the-contract of loan is to be construed according to the-laws of the state where it was made.</p> <p>Id. —Remedies under Laws of New York — Statute of Limitations— Action, to Redeem—Law of California — Deed Passing Title,— Where such deed and contract of security were executed in the state of New York, between residents of that state, either party could have maintained an action in that state on the contract, the one to enforce the right to redeem, and the other to recover the amount for which the land was held as security; and when the action in that state to recover the debt became barred by the laws of that state, no action to redeem from the security could thereafter be maintained in this state, where it appears that, by the law in force in this state at the time of the execution of the deed, the legal title passed to the grantee by the deed, and the right to redeem was barred whenever the debt to secure which the deed was made became barred
Judges: Beatty, Paterson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Buckley v. ChadwickCalifornia Supreme Court· 1955-10-07· cited 133×
- MacFarlane v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage ControlCalifornia Supreme Court· 1958-10-24· cited 34×
- Flack v. BolandCalifornia Supreme Court· 1938-04-01· cited 27×
- Fitzgerald v. FlanaganSupreme Court of Iowa· 1912-04-10· cited 24×
- Crigler v. SheplerSupreme Court of Kansas· 1909-04-10· cited 16×
- Sims v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia· 1924-06-10· cited 4×
- Pratt v. PrattNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1915-02-12· cited 3×
- Allen v. AllenNinth Circuit· 1899-10-03· cited 3×
- Allen v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court· 1895-02-23· cited 2×
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Gelpcke v. DubuqueSupreme Court· 1864-01-11· cited 280×
- Douglass v. County of PikeSupreme Court· 1880-03-29· cited 198×
- United States v. CrosbySupreme Court· 1812-02-24· cited 74×
- Thomson v. Lee CountySupreme Court· 1866-03-18· cited 71×
- Booth v. HoskinsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1888-03-20· cited 60×
- Grattan v. WigginsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1863-07-01· cited 59×
- Central Irrigation District v. De LappeCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-05-31· cited 51×
- Hall v. ArnottCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-09-03· cited 41×
- Raynor v. DrewCalifornia Supreme Court· 1887-05-20· cited 36×
- McCarthy v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court· 1863-07-01· cited 30×
- Heinlin v. CastroCalifornia Supreme Court· 1863-07-01· cited 21×
- Williams v. . FitzhughNew York Court of Appeals· 1868-01-05· cited 20×
- De Cazara v. OreñaCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-08-05· cited 20×
- Montgomery v. SpectCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 19×
- Kenyon v. WeltyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1862-07-01· cited 17×
- People ex rel. Thorne v. HaysCalifornia Supreme Court· 1854-04-15· cited 16×
- De Espinosa v. GregoryCalifornia Supreme Court· 1870-10-15· cited 16×
- Cunningham v. Hawkins.California Supreme Court· 1864-07-01· cited 15×
- Oullahan v. SweeneyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-07-01· cited 13×
- Heyward v. JuddSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1860-12-15· cited 11×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.