Torts · MBE-tested
E. H. GALE, Appellant, v. I. L. McDANIEL, Respondent
72 Cal. 334·Supreme Court of California·1887·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[No. 12081.
Department One.
May 24, 1887.]
E. H. GALE, Appellant, v. I. L. McDANIEL, Respondent.
Statute of Limitations—Maliciously Burning Building—Action for "when Barred. — An action for maliciously burning a building, and the personal property contained therein, whether considered as an action for a trespass upon real property, or for injuring personal property, is barred by the statute of limitations after the expiration of three years from the time of the injury.
Id.—Statute Commences to Run from Time of Injury.—The statute of limitations commences to run against such an action from the time of the injury, and not from the time the plaintiff discovered the person who did it.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Butte County.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Gray & Sexton, for Appellant.
Hundley & Gale, for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — Hayne, C. The Court.]
Hayne, C.
The action is for maliciously destroying by fire a stable and saloon, and the personal property contained therein. More than three years elapsed before the commencement of the action. Whether it be considered as an action for trespass upon real property, or for injuring personal property, it is barred by limitation. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 338.) The fact that plaintiff only recently discovered who did the wrong makes no difference. The demurrer was properly sustained, and the judgment should be affirmed.
Belcher, C. C., and Foote, C., concurred.
The Court.
For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment is affirmed.