Smith v. Compton
SMITH v. COMPTON
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Lawrence F. Terry (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 — Terry
Mr. Justice Terry delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt concurred.
The promise on the part of plaintiff to stay proceedings under his judgment against Richardson, was a condition precedent to the guaranty sued on, and performance on his part should have been alleged and proven, to entitle him to recover against defendants.
This was not done in the opening, and defendant was entitled to a judgment of non-suit.
The defendant, however, after his motion was denied, introduced evidence which enabled plaintiff to supply the defect in his case, and by so doing, waived the objection. See Ringold v. Haven, 1 Cal. Rep., 108.
From the whole record, the right of plaintiff to recover clearly appears 3 and we will not disturb a judgment, when it is evident that a new trial must be attended with the same result.
The judgment is affirmed with costs.
Cites, in this corpus
- Ringgold v. Haven & Livingston · 1850-06-15
Cited by
- Beverly Hills National Bank v. Glynn Civ. 31638 · 1968-12-04
- Wine Packing Corp. of Cal. v. Voss Civ. 10761 · 1940-02-29
- Butters v. the Brawley Star Civ. No. 2484. · 1920-06-03
- Levey v. Henderson L. A. No. 4059. · 1917-12-20
- In Re the Estate of Thomson S.F. No. 6235. · 1913-04-11
- Kraker v. Superior Court Civ. No. 939. First Appellate District. · 1911-03-21
- Vaca Valley & Clear Lake Railroad v. Mansfield No. 13334 · 1890-06-14
- Schlessinger v. Mallard No. 11172 · 1886-07-30
- Perkins v. Thornburgh · 1858-07-01