Pierce v. Kennedy
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, San Francisco County. This action was brought upon a promissory note, of which the following is a copy : Marysville, Cal., April 12th, 1852. $1000.00. Sixty days from date I promise to pay Henry Pierce or order, the sum of one thousand dollars, value received of him. HUGH KENNEDY.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, San Francisco County. This action was brought upon a promissory note, of which the following is a copy : Marysville, Cal., April 12th, 1852. $1000.00. Sixty days from date I promise to pay Henry Pierce or order, the sum of one thousand dollars, value received of him. HUGH KENNEDY. (Indorsed) Ford, Lathrop & Co. The complaint dontáiüed two Counts, One charging the defendants as joint makers, the other charging Ford, Lathrop'& Co. as indorsers. It appears from the statement upon appeal, agreed to by the parties, that on the 12th…
1Opinion of the CourtHeydenfeldt, J.
Murray, C. J., concurred.
The defendants, Ford, Lathrop & Co., were guarantors upon the note which is the foundation of this action, ^heir liability, according to the decision of this Court, in Riggs v. Waldo, 2 Cal., 485, is strictly that of an indorser, and they were entitled to notice of non-payment even although the circumstance of the maker’s absence might have excused a presentment, and demand upon him. The case cited has been incor„ rectly reported; the facts in that case should appear similar to the facts in this.
The Court below was correct in granting a non-suit, and the judgment is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Riggs v. WaldoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
3Cited by6 opinions
- Burton & Co. v. HansfordWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- Dana v. StanfordsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Rothschild v. GrixMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Ford v. HendricksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Geiger v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.