Riesen v. Leeder

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtDRAPER; KAUFMAN, P. J., and SHOEMAKER
Citation14 Cal.Rptr. 469,193 Cal.App.2d 580
Decision Date06 July 1961
PartiesD. E. RIESEN and John F. Hubbard, dba under the firm name and style of Rlesen & Hubbard, a co-partnership, Plaintiffs, v. Malcolm LEEDER, Individually, and Malcolm Leeder dba firm name and style of Leeder Specialty Company, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Respondent, Royal Manufacturing Co., a corporation, Cross-Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 19269.

Page 469

14 Cal.Rptr. 469
193 Cal.App.2d 580
D. E. RIESEN and John F. Hubbard, dba under the firm name and style of Rlesen & Hubbard, a co-partnership, Plaintiffs,
v.
Malcolm LEEDER, Individually, and Malcolm Leeder dba firm name and style of Leeder Specialty Company, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Respondent, Royal Manufacturing Co., a corporation, Cross-Defendant and Appellant.
Civ. 19269.
District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.
July 6, 1961.

Page 470

[193 Cal.App.2d 581] Anello & Vogel, by Bernard J. Vogel, Jr., San Jose, for appellant.

Popelka, Graham, Hanifin & Bonney, San Jose, for respondent.

DRAPER, Justice.

Cross-defendant manufacturer appeals from judgment in favor of cross-complainant retailer, in an action for breach of implied warranty. Manufacturer sold coffee vending machines to retailer in January, 1954. The latter resold four of them to plaintiff June 22, 1955, and made delivery in August, 1955. Plaintiff immediately complained that the cups of coffee dispensed by the machines were too weak or too bitter, and that the machines broke down. The complaints were renewed frequently. In late September or 'very early October', 1955, plaintiff offered to return the machines to Leeder, the retailer, and demanded return of the price which had been paid. Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action July 9, 1957. Leeder cross-complained against the manufacturer October 15, 1957. Judgment was ordered in favor of plaintiff against Leeder on the complaint, and in favor of Leeder against the manufacturer, for the same amount, on the cross-complaint. The only appeal is by the manufacturer from the judgment on the cross-complaint. The sole point raised is the statute of limitations.

In an action for breach of implied warranty, the two-year period (Code Civ.Proc. § 339(1)) governs (Wyatt v. Cadillac Motor Car Division, 145 Cal.App.2d 423, 426, 302 P.2d 665).

Respondent Leeder assumes that his cross-action is one for indemnity, and confines his argument to the question when [193 Cal.App.2d 582] the statute begins to run against such an action. His assumption is erroneous. 'Indemnity is a contract by which one engages ot save another from a legal consequence * * *' (Civ.Code § 2772). Nowhere does Leeder plead, prove, or even suggest an agreement by manufacturer to indemnify him. Nor does he plead or prove any tort liability, much less that unusual situation which can give one tortfeasor a claim over, perhaps...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Howe v. Pioneer Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 21, 1968
    ...of Civil Procedure section 339, subdivision 1, would cover the implied warranties and provides a two year statute. (Riesen v. Leeder, 193 Cal.App.2d 580, 14 Cal.Rptr. 469) However, we believe that where the damages to person or property, in addition to the warranted product, result from a b......
  • Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp., No. D049623.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 15, 2008
    ...rule. (See, e.g., Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 573, 584 [12 Cal.Rptr. 257, 360 P.2d 897]; Riesen v. Leeder (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 580, 582 [14 Cal.Rptr. 469]; Southern Cal. Enterprises v. Walter & Co. (1947) 78 Cal.App.2d 750, 754-756 [178 P.2d 785].) Those cases ar......
  • Budd v. Nixen
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 10, 1971
    ...involved were oral rather than written, the two year period of Code of Civil Proc., § 339(1), is applicable to them. (Riesen v. Leeder, 193 Cal.App.2d 580, 14 Cal.Rptr. The general rule relative to actions for breach of an oral contract is that the statutory period commences when the plaint......
  • Mims Crane Service, Inc. v. Insley Mfg. Corp., No. 68--627
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 3, 1969
    ...payment to the injured party or original plaintiff. We agree with Mims. Insley relies on the decisions in Riesen v. Leeder, 1961, 193 Cal.App.2d 580, 14 Cal.Rptr. 469; City & County Savings Bank v. M. Kramer & Sons, Inc., 1964, 43 Misc.2d 731, 252 N.Y.S.2d 224; and Nelson v. Sponber......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Howe v. Pioneer Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 21, 1968
    ...of Civil Procedure section 339, subdivision 1, would cover the implied warranties and provides a two year statute. (Riesen v. Leeder, 193 Cal.App.2d 580, 14 Cal.Rptr. 469) However, we believe that where the damages to person or property, in addition to the warranted product, result from a b......
  • Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp., No. D049623.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 15, 2008
    ...rule. (See, e.g., Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 573, 584 [12 Cal.Rptr. 257, 360 P.2d 897]; Riesen v. Leeder (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 580, 582 [14 Cal.Rptr. 469]; Southern Cal. Enterprises v. Walter & Co. (1947) 78 Cal.App.2d 750, 754-756 [178 P.2d 785].) Those cases are in......
  • Budd v. Nixen
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 10, 1971
    ...involved were oral rather than written, the two year period of Code of Civil Proc., § 339(1), is applicable to them. (Riesen v. Leeder, 193 Cal.App.2d 580, 14 Cal.Rptr. The general rule relative to actions for breach of an oral contract is that the statutory period commences when the plaint......
  • Mims Crane Service, Inc. v. Insley Mfg. Corp., No. 68--627
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 3, 1969
    ...payment to the injured party or original plaintiff. We agree with Mims. Insley relies on the decisions in Riesen v. Leeder, 1961, 193 Cal.App.2d 580, 14 Cal.Rptr. 469; City & County Savings Bank v. M. Kramer & Sons, Inc., 1964, 43 Misc.2d 731, 252 N.Y.S.2d 224; and Nelson v. Sponberg, 1957,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT