111 P. 759 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1910
This is an appeal from a judgment against defendants, and comes to this court upon a bill of exceptions.
The action was brought to recover the sum of $6,000 and interest, as due and unpaid on a promissory note executed by defendants to plaintiff. The original complaint was filed on March 9, 1908, which it is conceded was the last day upon which an action could have been brought upon the note without being subject to the bar of the statute of limitations.
The original complaint was neither subscribed by plaintiff nor by its attorney when filed, but subsequently, to wit, on *308 March 26, 1908, after service of summons, but before any appearance by defendants, upon permission granted by the court, upon the ex parte application of plaintiff, the complaint on file was subscribed by plaintiff's attorneys, and on the same day an amended complaint in due form and properly signed was filed.
The only defense relied on by defendants is that of the statute of limitations, which was raised both by demurrer and by answer to the amended complaint.
The only claim made by appellant for a reversal of the judgment is that the filing of a complaint, defective only in that it is neither signed by plaintiff nor by his attorney, is not sufficient to toll the running of the statute of limitations — that an action so commenced is, in law, not commenced at all.
In support of this contention appellants citeDixey v. Pollock,
Appellants correctly observe that the case ofDixey v. Pollock,
The judgment is affirmed.
Cooper, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.