|Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New|
Stats: 2,658,163 members, 6,239,778 topics. Date: Tuesday, 13 April 2021 at 07:54 AM
|Top Business Lawyers In California by luqmanali12: 8:14pm On Mar 05|
In action to quiet title in which plaintiff asserts the right of reentry on land over which right of way had been conveyed to the railroad, the three-year statute of limitations under subd 2 does not bar recovery of damages in lieu of possession. Highland Realty Co. v. San Rafael (Cal. June 8, 1956), 46 Cal. 2d 669, 298 P.2d 15, 1956 Cal. CALIFLAW 221. The law firm has a top business attorney for your disputes.
Injury to Property
In an action for maliciously destroying by fire a saloon and stable and personal property therein, the statute commenced running from the time of the injury, not from the time the plaintiff discovered who did it. Gale v. McDaniel (Cal. May 24, 1887), 72 Cal. 334, 13 P. 871, 1887 Cal. CALIFLAW 530.
An action for specific performance or for damages for breach of a contract to furnish water to the owner of realty was not barred by this section, among others, where the water pipes used to supply the water were removed ten years prior to commencement of the action, but by a third person, and there was no interference by the defendant with the use of its pipes by the plaintiff, no repudiation of the contract, and no demand for necessary changes and repairs and no refusal to deliver water under the contract at that time. Coulter v. Sausalito Bay Water Co. (CalifLaw Apr. 12, 1932), 122 CalifLaw 480, 10 P.2d 780, 1932 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1065.
An action for damages for injury to land from waters seeping from an irrigation canal is not barred by subd 2, where the land injured by seepage prior to the commencement of the three-year period was distant from the land injured within that period and the occurrence of damage in the widely separated area gave rise to a new cause of action within the three-year period. Nelson v. Robinson (CalifLaw Oct. 29, 1941), 47 CalifLaw 2d 520, 118 P.2d 350, 1941 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1199.
Actions for damages for flooding of the plaintiff’s lands accrued and the statute commenced to run when the lands were flooded, not from the time the dikes were erected across a river channel, irrespective of whether the liability of a particular defendant was based on negligence or on Cal Const Art I § 14. Smith v. Los Angeles (CalifLaw Oct. 31, 1944), 66 CalifLaw 2d 562, 153 P.2d 69, 1944 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1219.
Where a defendant excavated on land adjoining that of the plaintiff, and some five years later consequential injuries occurred to the plaintiff’s land in the form of landslides, the running of the statute is to be computed from the date when the actual injury first occurred. Veterans' Welfare Board v. Oakland (CalifLaw June 7, 1946), 74 CalifLaw 2d 818, 169 P.2d 1000, 1946 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1036.
Cause of action arises, and general statute of limitations begins to run on tort actions for injury to property at time injury is sustained. Los Angeles v. McNeil (CalifLaw Dep't Super. Ct. May 15, 1958), 160 CalifLaw 2d Supp. 867, 326 P.2d 29, 1958 CalifLawCALIFLAW 2195.
|Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health |
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket
Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2021 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 36