Pierce v. Kennedy
HENRY PIERCE v. HUGH KENNEDY and FORD, LATHROP & Co.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Solomon Heydenfeldt (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydenfeldt
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.
Cites, in this corpus
- Riggs v. Waldo · 1852-10-15
Cited by
- Loustalot v. Calkins L. A. No. 388 · 1898-05-24
- Ford v. Hendricks · 1868-07-01
- Geiger v. Clark · 1859-07-01
- Dana v. Stanfords · 1858-07-01