Klockenbaum v. Pierson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fifteenth Judicial District. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCrocker, J.
*162This is an action brought by the plaintiff upon a promissory note executed by Pierson, Bliss, Thompson, and McDuffie, as the makers, and Kimball as indorser. Bliss, Thompson, McDuffie, and Kimball defend the action, claiming that 'the note was made for Pierson’s benefit, and that they were only sureties and indorsers for him, and that the plaintiff, instead of being a purchaser of the note, paid the same for Pierson, under a promise from Pierson that he would give him a new note with the same persons as sureties. Judgment was rendered in favor of Bliss, Thompson, McDuffie, and Kimball,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brooks v. LyonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1853
3Cited by15 opinions
- Fries v. Acme White Lead & Color WorksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
- Champagne v. A. HamBurger & Sons, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1915
- Slemons v. PatersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Putnam v. Pickwick Stages, Northern Division, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1929
- Bradbury Estate Co. v. CarrollCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.