Nelson v. Merced County

Citations

• 122 Cal. 644
• 55 P. 421
• 1898 Cal. LEXIS 650

Syllabus

<p>Pleading—General Demurrer—Statute op Limitations.—Where but one cause oí action is stated in a complaint, if a recovery can be bad for any part of the claim, a general demurrer thereto, for want of facts, and that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations, should not be sustained in part, but should be overruled with leave to answer.</p> <p>Id.—Answer—Plea op Statute—Waiver op Error—Presumption of Consent.—Where a demurrer to the complaint was erroneously sustained in part, and an answer was filed pleading the statute of' limitations, as to part of the claim, upon which a trial was had without objection, with tne same result as that of the order upon, the demurrer, the plaintiff is not prejudiced by the erroneous-ruling thereupon, and it will be presumed upon appeal-that the answer was filed by consent, and the judgment thereafter rendered is not affected by the irregularity.</p> <p>County—Claim op Supervisor—Per Diem—Service as Boad Commissioner—Limitation.—A claim of a Supervisor against a county of the thirty-ninth class for his regular per diem for services rendered-while acting as road commissioner, covering a period of three years, is not barred by section 41 of the County Governmeint Act, as to that portion of the claim preceding one year from the date of its presentation, if presented within one year after the last item of the account or claim accrued.</p> <p>Id.—Statutes op Limitation- -Construction.—Statutes of limitations are to be construed strictly, and the court must find the intention of the legislature in the statute itself.</p> <p>Id.—Per Diem Compensation—Account—Single Cause of Action.— Where the statute does not fix a time for the payment of the per diem compensation of a supervisor, such per diem is the proper subject of an account to be embraced in a single cause of action, and to- be presented as one itemized claim to the board' of supervisors.</p>