Stone v. Hammell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.
— After further consideration upon argument on rehearing, we are satisfied that the judgment in this case should be reversed.
The plaintiff with three other persons — Newell, Hamilton, and Hay man —were sureties on a promissory note made by defendant, Hammell, to one Byron Stevens for three thousand dollars, dated July 1, 1877, and payable one year after date. Plaintiff claims that one of said sureties, Newell, paid on said note something over two thousand dollars, and that plaintiff paid to Newell, as his pro rata contributive share, one thousand dollars; and this action was brought to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Chipman v. Morill & WebsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Romine v. RomineIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- In re Estate of HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Boulware v. RobinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1852
3Cited by22 opinions
- Regents of University of California v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
- Yule v. BishopCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Dew v. AppleberryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Burrus v. CookSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Yule v. BishopCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.