Reeves v. Howe
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixteenth District. The complaint was substantially against all the defendants as makers of the note—the specific allegation, as to Hayward, being, that for the consideration expressed in the note, he guaranteed its payment, “ and thereby became liable with said other defendants to pay said note. The demurrer was, that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Demurrer overruled; answer filed; judgment for plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Sixteenth District. The complaint was substantially against all the defendants as makers of the note—the specific allegation, as to Hayward, being, that for the consideration expressed in the note, he guaranteed its payment, “ and thereby became liable with said other defendants to pay said note. The demurrer was, that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Demurrer overruled; answer filed; judgment for plaintiff. Defendant, Hayward, appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Cope, J. concurring.
*153The question in this case is the legal obligation imported by an instrument in this form: “ Sixty days from date, for value received we jointly promise to pay F. Reeves, or order, the sum of four hundred dollars, etc. Oct. 1858. (Signed) E. B. Howe, J. E. Mayo.” Indorsed, “ I guarantee the collection of the within note when due. (Signed) A. Hayward.” The defendant, Hayward, was sued, together with the makers, and judgment had against him without further proof than the paper, and that the indorsement was made cotemporaneously with the signing of the note. The question is,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hall v. Farmer & DoolittleNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Jones v. PostCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
3Cited by4 opinions
- Winchester v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Crooks v. TullyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- Titus v. WoodsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Trout v. LaneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932