Yule v. Bishop
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Edward J. Pringle, E. J. Pringle, Jr., and Fitzgerald & Abbott, for Appellants. Upon payment of note by the accommodation indorser, as surety of the corporation, the only cause of action against the corporation was upon an assumpsit for reimbursement. (Civ.
Read the full summary
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Edward J. Pringle, E. J. Pringle, Jr., and Fitzgerald & Abbott, for Appellants. Upon payment of note by the accommodation indorser, as surety of the corporation, the only cause of action against the corporation was upon an assumpsit for reimbursement. (Civ. Code, sec. 2847; Chipman v. Morrill, 20 Cal. 130; Stone v. Hammell, 83 Cal. 551;1 Thomas v. Pacific Beach Co., 115 Cal. 136; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 2d ed., p. 233; Hunt v. Amidon, 4 Hill, 349;2 Schleissman v. Kallenberg, 72 Iowa, 338.3) The surety, though entitled by subrogation to…
1ConcurrenceHarrison, J.
Iconcur in the judgment, and in much of the opinion of Mr. Justice Henshaw. I do not, however, assent to that portion of the opinion in which it is held that upon the payment of the note to the bank by Mrs. Blair the obligation of the maker of the note was extinguished, nor to the construction given to section 1473 of the Civil Code. That section is as follows: “Full performance of an obligation, by the party whose duty it is to perform it, or by any other person on his behalf and with his assent, if accepted by the creditor, extinguishes it.”
In order that an obligation may be extinguished,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Ellsworth v. . LockwoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Pinney v. McGregoryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Redington v. CornwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Wadsworth v. . LyonNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Bank of San Luis Obispo v. Pacific Coast Steamship Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.