Pierce v. Kennedy

5 Cal. 138
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1855·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

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

Pierce v. Kennedy, 5 Cal. 138 (Cal. 1855).

5 Cal. 138 (Pierce v. Kennedy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Loustalot v. Calkins
53 P. 258 (California Supreme Court, 1898)
Burton & Co. v. Hansford
10 W. Va. 470 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1877)
Rothschild v. Grix
31 Mich. 150 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1875)
Ford v. Hendricks
34 Cal. 673 (California Supreme Court, 1868)
Geiger v. Clark
13 Cal. 579 (California Supreme Court, 1859)
Dana v. Stanfords
10 Cal. 269 (California Supreme Court, 1858)