From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Waldo

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
Feb 28, 1936
12 Cal.App.2d 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)

Opinion

Docket No. 9783.

February 28, 1936.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Thomas C. Gould, Judge. Reversed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Louis Ferrari, Edmund Nelson, Howard Waterman, Freston Files and Ralph E. Lewis for Appellant.

Donald M. Keith for Respondent.


[1] 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 2924 1/2, 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. Ferdon, 5 Cal. (2d) 226 [ 54 P.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.


Summaries of

Brown v. Waldo

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
Feb 28, 1936
12 Cal.App.2d 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
Case details for

Brown v. Waldo

Case Details

Full title:A.G. BROWN, Appellant, v. ROLLIN F. WALDO, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One

Date published: Feb 28, 1936

Citations

12 Cal.App.2d 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
55 P.2d 240

Citing Cases

Powell v. Commonwealth

"Although a poll of the jury is the right of the accused, it is not a necessary ingredient of his conviction,…