Damor v. Pardow
JAMES E. DAMOR v. GEORGE PARDOW and E. D. WATERS
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Silas S. Sanderson (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 — Sanderson
By the Court, Sanderson, J.:
The note in suit is the joint and several note of the makers. As between them and the payee they are both principals. If one of the makers received all the consideration, or if one be surety for the other as between themselves, it is a matter about which the payee is not concerned. As to him they are both principals notwithstanding, and hence if the relationship suggested exists between them it cannot be made the subject of judicial inquiry in this action. *281(Aud v. Magruder, 10 Cal. 288; Dane v. Corduan, 24 Cal. 164; Shriver v. Lovejoy, 32 Cal. 574.)
Judgment affirmed.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Superior Court S. F. 15908 · 1937-11-27
- Shriver v. Lovejoy · 1867-07-01
- Dane v. Corduan · 1864-07-01
Cited by
- Austin v. American Surety Co. of New York Docket No. 6993. · 1931-10-30
- Wolf v. Brakebill Civ. No. 2012. · 1916-12-12
- Eppinger v. Kendrick Sac. No. 46 · 1896-10-28
- California National Bank v. Ginty No. 19353 · 1895-07-16
- Southern California National Bank of Los Angeles v. Wyatt No. 13725 · 1891-02-05
- Chafoin v. Rich No. 11409 · 1888-12-10