Gross v. Parrott
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Twelfth District. The case stands on demurrer to the complaint, which avers, in substance, that on the twenty-fifth day of February, 1855, the plaintiff had $4,136.10 deposited in the .banking house of Page, Bacon & Co. Page, Bacon & Co., being unable to presently meet their liabilities, and desiring an extension, and in consideration of the consent of the plaintiff and the other depositors and creditors mentioned in the writing obligatory thereinafter set…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Twelfth District. The case stands on demurrer to the complaint, which avers, in substance, that on the twenty-fifth day of February, 1855, the plaintiff had $4,136.10 deposited in the .banking house of Page, Bacon & Co. Page, Bacon & Co., being unable to presently meet their liabilities, and desiring an extension, and in consideration of the consent of the plaintiff and the other depositors and creditors mentioned in the writing obligatory thereinafter set forth to give said extension, and for the other considerations expressed in said writing obligatory, the defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.
Field, C. J. concurring.
The complaint in this case shows that the plaintiff has no cause of action. The undertaking of the defendant was, that Page, Bacon & Co. should pay at the particular times mentioned in the agreement signed by the creditors of that firm. The effect of the subsequent transactions between the plaintiff and Page, Bacon & Co. was to extend the time of payment, and, of course, to release the defendant, who was a mere surety. He was not a party to these transactions, and the plaintiff is not entitled to relief on the ground of inadvertence and mistake. There was no want of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Tuohy v. WoodsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Wise v. ClapperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Daneri v. GazzolaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903