Legal Opinion
Goldman v. Dangerfield
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 30, 1929No. Docket No. 3833PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
The plaintiff, as the assignee of Meyer Cloak & Suit Company, instituted this action to recover judgment against the defendants upon a written guaranty signed by them, in the words and figures following, to wit:
“We hereby guarantee payment for all merchandise purchased from Meyer Cloak & Suit Company, and Granada Knit Mills by Mrs. N. L. Stucky of Red Bluff, California, up to the amount of Fifteen Hundred Dollars ($1500.00).
“Wm. Dangerfield.
“E. J. Baker.
“Witness: C. E. Patterson.
“Dated: March 3, 1925.”
The defendants had judgment and the plaintiff appeals.
The crucial question involved in this…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Scovill Manufacturing Co. v. CassidyIllinois Supreme Court · 1916
- Sinnige v. OswaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Lean v. GeaganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Kierulff & Ravenscroft v. KopingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- R. N. Nason & Co. v. KennedyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
3Cited by6 opinions
- Berg Metals Corp. v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Chevron Chemical Co. v. MechamDistrict Court, D. Utah · 1982
- Bruce v. Landmark Central Bank & Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1979
- Champion Home Builders Co. v. SipesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Virden Packing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.