Ætna Indemnity Co. v. Auto-Traction Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. The defendant in error filed a complaint against the plaintiff -in error and the Universal Automobile Company, a corporation, in which it alleged: That on June 30, 1903, a contract was made between the Universal Automobile Company, the defendant in error, and A. II.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. The defendant in error filed a complaint against the plaintiff -in error and the Universal Automobile Company, a corporation, in which it alleged: That on June 30, 1903, a contract was made between the Universal Automobile Company, the defendant in error, and A. II. Eddy, in which it was agreed that the automobile company should, within 47 days from the date of the payment of the first installment by the other parties to the agreement, manufacture for them four automobiles for the consideration of…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
It is the contention of the plaintiff in error that the rescission of *97the contract released and discharged it from its obligation upon the contract of guaranty; that, by the rescission for nonperformance, the contract was entirely set aside, and the relation between the parties thereto was as if the contract had never been made, and that the party rescinding could recover only upon a quantum meruit, and could not allege a breach of the contract; and that the guarantor could become liable upon his written guaranty only in the event of a breach of the contract which he guarantied. We can…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. Estate of SteeleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pan American Petroleum & Transport Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1927