Howland v. Aitch
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth District, San Joaquin County. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the CourtRhodes, J.
The appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial not having been taken within the time prescribed by law, must be dismissed. The appeal from the judgment remains.
The defendant, Aitch, made his promissory note to the plaintiff, and within three days after its delivery the defendant, Thurston, indorsed upon the note the following guaranty : “I guarantee the payment of the within note. H. H. Thurston.” The guaranty was given in pursuance of a verbal agreement made by and between the three parties, about three days before the delivery of the note, whereby the plaintiff promised to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Brewster v. . SilenceNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Riggs v. WaldoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
- Jones v. PostCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
- Hazeltinte v. LarcoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Otis v. HaseltineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- First National Bank v. SpaldingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Drovers National Bank v. BrowneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Hammond Lumber Co. v. DanzigerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Pacific States Savings & Loan Co. v. StowellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Miller v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.