Legal Opinion

Manuel v. Hicks Iron Works

California Supreme Court

Decided September 27, 1932No. Docket No. Sac. 4573PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

This is an action by one of several guarantors of a promissory note, against the maker and other guarantors, to recover on the same after payment. On December 17, 1920, defendant Hicks Iron Works executed the note in question, for the sum of $12,881, to Portuguese American Bank of San Francisco, payable on demand. At the same time a guaranty was executed on the back of the note by seven persons: Plaintiff Manuel, defendants Bandy, Scott, Demarest, Solinsky and Levy, and P. George Gow, now deceased. On February 25, 1922, the note was assigned to Pacific Securities Corporation,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Yule v. BishopCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Yule v. BishopCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Adams v. WallaceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Murphy v. Hellman Commercial Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Bailes v. KeckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Merchants Discount Co. v. Federal Street Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
  2. Moody v. KirkpatrickDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1964
  3. Tucker v. NicholsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Berrington v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  5. Sachs v. AdeliAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API