Rusk v. Johnston
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
BISHOP, J., pro tem.
Out of the conflicting evidence the finding emerges that D. Johnston’s guaranty of a note and trust deed, on which plaintiffs seek recovery, was given without consideration and hence will not bear the burden of a judgment.
The real conflict in the case centered around the question: Was the guaranty either given or promised before the note transaction was completed, or was it afterward ? The trial court found, among other things, that the guaranty “was executed and delivered without any consideration”. Under the circumstances this finding was one of an ultimate fact, not a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- First-Trust Joint Stock Land Bank of Chicago v. MeredithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Rivera v. CappaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- Drovers National Bank v. BrowneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Bank of Italy v. WetzelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
3Cited by8 opinions
- Alkus v. Johnson-Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1947
- Rancho Santa Fe Pharmacy, Inc. v. SeyfertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Oakland Bank of Commerce v. WashingtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Hayward Lumber & Investment Co. v. Construction Products Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1952
- Challenge-Cook Bros., Inc. v. LantzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.