Kritzer v. Mills
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District. This was a suit commenced on the following promissory note: “ Three months after date, I promise to pay to John Kritzer the sum of five hundred dollars, with interest, at two per cent, per month, from date. Value received. (Signed.) “John Mills. “David Coun.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District. This was a suit commenced on the following promissory note: “ Three months after date, I promise to pay to John Kritzer the sum of five hundred dollars, with interest, at two per cent, per month, from date. Value received. (Signed.) “John Mills. “David Coun. “ Shaw’s Elat, October 8, 1856.” The defendant Coun, in his answer, admits the execution of the note, but alleges that he signed it as surety, and that plaintiff knew that fact at the time of the execution of the note. He also avers that he was entitled to notice of the…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
This was an action upon a promissory note executed by defendants. The defence set up by Coun, was, that he was only a surety for Mills; that plaintiff neglected to bring suit in due time, and that no notice of demand and protest was given. Mere neglect togue is no defence. (5 Cal., 173.) The defendant Coun was nJUKtitlod to notice. The note was signed “ John Mills,”
There was nothing upon the face of the note to show that Coun was a surety, and this case does not fall within the doctrine laid down in the cases of Riggs v. Waldo, 2 Cal. R., 485 j Lightstone v. Lawrence, 4 Cal., 277 ; and Bryan…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Humphreys v. CraneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
- Lightstone v. LaurencelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1854
3Cited by2 opinions
- Clark v. CraneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- (HC) Bazley v. CDCRDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020