Pierce v. Kennedy
This text of 5 Cal. 138 (Pierce v. Kennedy) 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.
Opinion
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 affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 Cal. 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-kennedy-cal-1855.