Riggs v. Waldo
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District for the City of Sacramento. The complaint sets forth that William Waldo made his promissory note on the 19th June, 1852, in which he promised to pay sixty days after date, to the order of Burton Lace and Harden Bigalow $1500, for value received, bearing interest at the rate of three per cent, per month.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District for the City of Sacramento. The complaint sets forth that William Waldo made his promissory note on the 19th June, 1852, in which he promised to pay sixty days after date, to the order of Burton Lace and Harden Bigalow $1500, for value received, bearing interest at the rate of three per cent, per month. Endorsed “Burton Lace, H. Bigalow;” and that the said Henley and Hastings then, for a valuable consideration, to wit, the sum of $1300 paid to them by plaintiff, guaranteed the payment of said note in the words following, to wit, “We guarantee the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Heydemeldt
One who puts his name on the back of a promissory note out of the course of regular negotiability, is not an indorser, according to strict commercial meaning. He is termed a guarantor, and this is so, whether his inscription is simply in blank, or prebeded by the words “ I guarantee, &c.”
The first question here is, whether this kind of guaranty is within the statute of frauds, for the want of an expressed consideration in writing. The point is not a new one. It has arisen before in many, and probably in every commercial country, which has adopted the English statute of frauds. While there has…
2Cited by14 opinions
- First National Bank v. BabcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Jones v. GoodwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Melton v. BrownSupreme Court of Florida · 1889
- Fessenden v. SummersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Howland v. AitchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.