gno.law

Whiting v. Clark

California Supreme Court · · 1861-07-01 · Published · 17 Cal. 407

WHITING v. CLARK

Area
civil
Panel
Joseph G. Baldwin (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 — Baldwin

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 *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.

Cited by