Whiting v. Clark

17 Cal. 407
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1861
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 17 Cal. 407 (Whiting v. Clark) 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
Whiting v. Clark, 17 Cal. 407 (Cal. 1861).

Opinion

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. concurring.

This suit is brought on a guaranty by defendant of a debt of or [411]*411for one Porter. The only thing set up in defense which it is necessary to notice is, the plea that no suit has been brought to charge the original debtor, and that the Statute of Limitations bars the claim as to him. But this is no defense. After legally charging the defendant, the plaintiff was not bound to sue the principal; at least, unless requested by the guarantor; and the surety had in his own hands the means of protecting himself from loss by delay, by paying the debt and then suing the principal, or by filing a bill to compel the creditor to sue. By the guaranty the defendant became the debtor of the creditor, and no other limitation could defeat the claim than that prescribed by law for the class of indebtedness evidenced by the paper.

Probably the charge of fifty-six dollars for interest is erroneous; but this matter should have been brought distinctly to the notice of the referee, and objection taken to the judgment and finding on this account.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Ingalls v. Bell
110 P.2d 1068 (California Court of Appeal, 1941)
Gaffigan v. Lawton
37 P.2d 79 (California Supreme Court, 1934)
Anderson v. Shaffer
277 P. 185 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Duerr v. Sloan
195 P. 475 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Kinsel v. Ballou
91 P. 620 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
Towle v. Sweeney
83 P. 74 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
Mulvane v. Sedgley
55 L.R.A. 552 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1901)
Wilkinson-Gaddis Co v. Van Riper
43 A. 675 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1899)
Carver v. Steele
47 P. 1007 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Nelson v. First Nat. Bank
69 F. 798 (Eighth Circuit, 1895)
Esberg-Bachman Leaf-Tobacco Co. v. Heid
62 F. 962 (D. Alaska, 1894)
Bull v. Coe
18 P. 808 (California Supreme Court, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 Cal. 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whiting-v-clark-cal-1861.