Legal Opinion

Hammond Lumber Co. v. Danziger

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 13, 1934No. Civ. 8037PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAHN, J., pro tem.

Defendant Edith Wake Danziger appeals from a judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants for the sum found due, in an action upon a contract of guaranty which reads as follows:

“Los Angeles, California, “Date Feb. 9, 1925.
“For Value Received, the undersigned, jointly and severally, hereby guarantee due payment of any amounts owing or to be owing in the future to the Hammond Lumber Company by Olympic Auditorium, Inc. (on job 18th & Grand Ave.), and hereby agree that this guarantee may and shall be deemed and considered the obligation of the undersigned as an…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Alexander v. BoutonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Westphal v. NevillsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Drovers National Bank v. BrowneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  4. Citizens Trust & Savings Bank v. BryantCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  5. Howland v. AitchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Central Bank of Oakland v. ProctorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Garthofner v. EdmondsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  3. State v. ApplebySupreme Court of Kansas · 1942
  4. Schafer v. Wholesale Frozen Foods, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co. v. TitusDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1941

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API