Damor v. Pardow

California Supreme Court

Damor v. Pardow

34 Cal. 278

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1867

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 34 Cal. 278 (Damor v. Pardow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Damor v. Pardow, 34 Cal. 278 (Cal. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Sanderson, J.:

The note in suit is the joint and several note of the makers. As between them and the payee they are both principals. If one of the makers received all the consideration, or if one be surety for the other as between themselves, it is a matter about which the payee is not concerned. As to him they are both principals notwithstanding, and hence if the relationship suggested exists between them it cannot be made the subject of judicial inquiry in this action. [281]*281(Aud v. Magruder, 10 Cal. 288; Dane v. Corduan, 24 Cal. 164; Shriver v. Lovejoy, 32 Cal. 574.)

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court, Sanderson, J.:

The note in suit is the joint and several note of the makers. As between them and the payee they are both principals. If one of the makers received all the consideration, or if one be surety for the other as between themselves, it is a matter about which the payee is not concerned. As to him they are both principals notwithstanding, and hence if the relationship suggested exists between them it cannot be made the subject of judicial inquiry in this action. [281]*281(Aud v. Magruder, 10 Cal. 288; Dane v. Corduan, 24 Cal. 164; Shriver v. Lovejoy, 32 Cal. 574.)

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Cal. 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/damor-v-pardow-cal-1867.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack