50 Cal.App.2d 306, 6633, Salada Beach Public Utility Dist. v. Anderson

Docket Nº:6633
Citation:50 Cal.App.2d 306, 123 P.2d 86
Party Name:Salada Beach Public Utility Dist. v. Anderson
Case Date:March 03, 1942
Court:California Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 306

50 Cal.App.2d 306

123 P.2d 86

SALADA BEACH PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, Appellant,

v.

M. O. ANDERSON, Respondent.

Civ. No. 6633.

California Court of Appeal, Third District

March 3, 1942

Page 307

COUNSEL

R. A. Rapsey for Appellant. Durward Herndon for Respondent

OPINION

TUTTLE, J.

This action was commenced to secure a judgment for declaratory relief, with the object and purpose of establishing the rights and duties of the parties in respect to the sale of bonds issued by appellant. Respondent filed a cross-complaint asking for judgment against appellant in the

Page 308

amount of the face value of the bonds, and interest due thereon. Findings were made in favor of respondent upon all issues, and judgment was entered against appellant in the amount prayed for in the [123 P.2d 87] cross-complaint. The appeal is from the judgment.

Appellant is a public utility district, organized under the provisions of chapter 560, Statutes of 1921, Deering's Gen. Laws, 1937, Act 6391. To cover the cost of proposed improvements, it issued and sold to respondent, for par and accrued interest, bonds with a face value of $7000. Respondent paid for the bonds in cash. At the time of the purchase, the latter was a director of said district. He was present at the directors' meetings which authorized such sale, but did not vote on the authorizing resolutions. The bonds matured at various times, commencing with 1936. At one of such meetings, held February 21, 1931, $5000 worth of bonds were sold, while on a later date, June 31, 1931, $2000 worth were sold.

The trial court found that the action was barred by the provisions of sections 337, 338, 340, 343 and 345 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No attempt is made by either party to point out the particular section relied upon. However, respondent does state his position, in support of the finding, as follows:

"The statute of limitation begins to run against appellant from the date of the delivery of the bonds for a valuable consideration, since the purpose of the action is to cancel its obligation to pay the value of the bonds (Sechrist v. Rialto Irr. Dist., 129 Cal. 640 .)"

The action here, however, is not to cancel the bonds, but to secure an adjudication relative to the validity of the sale to respondent. Furthermore, "The statute of limitations in a declaratory action does not begin to run...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP