Price v. Dunlap
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County. This was an action upon a lost note, not negotiable, executed by the defendant in 1850, for $4,320. Prior to the commencement of the suit, the plaintiff tendered a bond of indemnity to the defendant, to indemnify him against a repayment of the lost note.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County. This was an action upon a lost note, not negotiable, executed by the defendant in 1850, for $4,320. Prior to the commencement of the suit, the plaintiff tendered a bond of indemnity to the defendant, to indemnify him against a repayment of the lost note. The defendant was informed at the time of tendering the indemnity, that if it was not satisfactory, or if he had any "objection to its form or sufficiency, to make it known, and the plaintiff would give him indemnity which would be entirely free from objection.…
1Opinion of the CourtMurray, C. J.
Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.
Many errors are assigned in the record,—none of which are tenable.
In Welton v. Adams & Co., 4 Cal., 37, we held, that in case of the loss or destruction of negotiable paper, the plaintiff could not maintain his action, without first indemnifying the defendant.
This rule was established for the protection and safety of the commercial community, and has not been extended by any subsequent decisions. The plaintiff in this case has brought himself within the rule: the evidence shows that he did tender a bond of indemnity, and further offered,'if such bond was not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Minturn v. FisherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1854
3Cited by9 opinions
- Giselman v. StarrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Huckell v. MatrangaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Russ v. TuttleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Wuerth v. FrohlichMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
- Gilbert v. MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.