Legal Opinion
Tilden v. Goldy Machine Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 10, 1908No. Civ. No. 505PublishedCited by 3 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, and from an order denying a new trial. A. L.. Rhodes, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. William A. Bowden, Beasley & Fry, and Emilio Lastretto, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
Plaintiff recovered judgment, from which and from the order denying its motion for a new trial defendant appeals.
Defendant was sued as guarantor of the following nonnegotiable promissory note:
“15,000.00. San Francisco, Cal. March 24, 1905.
“On demand; for value received, I promise to pay B. B. Tilden, the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00). with interest at the rate of three per cent (3%) per annum.
“WILLIAM T. GARRETT.
“Witness: H. H. BENEDICT.
“Endorsed: The Goldy Machine Company, per S. N. Goldy, H. F. Emme, Executive Committee.”
The court found that the defendant is a corporation…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gribble v. Columbus Brewing Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Main v. CasserlyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- First National Bank v. BabcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Lake Street Elevated Railroad v. CarmichaelIllinois Supreme Court · 1900
3Cited by3 opinions
- Merchants' National Bank v. BentelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Jose Jesus Guerrero Torres v. National Passenger Railroad CorporationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2024
- Zaracotas v. AmGUARD Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2024