Shumaker v. Rippy
| Decision Date | 30 January 1956 |
| Citation | 138 Cal.App.2d 815,292 P.2d 536 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Walter Clark SHUMAKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Charles T. RIPPY, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 21350. . Division 2, California |
Robert B. Heggen, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Chas. T. Rippy, Torrance, respondent, in pro. per.
The question for decision is whether the court below correctly awarded a summary judgment under Code of Civil Procedure, § 437c, in an action for damages based upon the negligence of an escrow agent.
On January 6, 1955, appellant Shumaker filed an action for breach of contract of escrow for the sale of certain real property to one Burton L. Lamb, wherein the respondent Rippy was escrow agent. It was alleged that the respondent failed to pay over the net proceeds of such asle and thereby breached the terms of the escrow agreement. The second cause of action alleged additionally that appellant suffered certain damages as the result of the negligent handling of such escrow.
Respondent's demurrer to the second cause of action of the first amended complaint was properly sustained on the ground that the negligence of an escrow agent is governed by the two-year statute of limitations. Code Civ.Proc. § 339, subd. 1. This demurrer was sustained with leave to amend, but no further amendment was filed.
Both causes of action were dismissed under section 437c, Code of Civil Procedure. This appeal followed.
The two-year statute of limitations, Code Civ.Proc. § 339, subd. 1, is applicable either to an action for breach of an escrow agreement or to an action for damages on account of negligence in the performance thereof. Howard v. Security Title Insurance & Guarantee Co., 20 Cal.App.2d 226, 228, 66 P.2d 1247. There is no question but that the complaint herein was filed more than two years and eight months after the alleged negligent payment of the sales price to Edith May Foster, by the escrow agent. Where an escrow agent is accused after more than two years of having carelessly delivered money or title papers to the damage of a party to the escrow, the action for such negligence is barred by the two-year statute. Howard v. Security Title Insurance & Guarantee Co., supra. It must therefore follow that the demurrer to the second count was properly sustained and, also, that no valid cause can be stated on the ground of negligence.
But the Howard case goes further. It was there contended that the four-year stat...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amen v. Merced County Title Co.
...signed to start the statute running anew. Plaintiff's action was therefore on a written contract. Defendant invokes Shumaker v. Rippy, 138 Cal.App.2d 815, 816, 292 P.2d 536, in which the court held that 'The two-year statute of limitations * * * is applicable either to an action for breach ......
-
Walker v. Pacific Indem. Co.
...Similarly, an action against an escrow holder accrues when he negligently pays escrowed funds to the wrong person (Shumaker v. Rippy, 138 Cal.App.2d 815, 292 P.2d 536); and an action against an attorney for negligent representation of his client accrues when the negligence occurs (DeGarmo v......
-
Simmons v. Bank of America, N.T. & S.A.
...Gillette, 95 Cal. 317, 30 P. 545; Howard v. Security Title Insurance & Guarantee Co., 20 Cal.App.2d 226, 66 P.2d 1247; Shumaker v. Rippy, 138 Cal.App.2d 815, 292 P.2d 536. The escrow was closed within the thirty days If plaintiffs relied upon the breach of an oral contract they would be met......
-
Fisher v. MacInness
...applies to both types of action. Code Civ.Proc. § 339, subd. 1; Lattin v. Gillette, 95 Cal. 317, 319-320, 30 P. 545; Shumaker v. Rippy, 138 Cal.App.2d 815, 816, 292 P.2d 536. 'The giving of this certificate was the breach of their agreement, and constituted the negligence for which they bec......