Ford v. Hendricks
ALVIN FORD v. W. T. HENDRICKS and ZELOTES REED
- 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.:
As to the relation of Reed—whether it be that of maker, indorser or guarantor—there is much conflict of authority; but, under the settled rule in this State, he must be regarded as a guarantor. (Riggs v. Waldo, 2 Cal. 485; Pierce v. Kennedy, 5 Cal. 138; Brady v. Reynolds, 13 Cal. 31; Geiger v. Clark, 13 Cal. 579.)
It is equally well settled in this State that the promise of a guarantor is not within the Statute of Frauds if made before the delivery of the note. (Riggs v. Waldo, supra; Evoy v. Tewksbury, 5 Cal. 285; Jones v. Post, 6 Cal. 102; Hazeltine v. Larco, 7 Cal. 32; Otis v. Hazeltine, 27 Cal. 80.)
The mere fact that Reed indorsed the note several days after it was executed by Hendricks does not affect the question. The note only took effect upon its delivery to Ford, and Reed’s name was indorsed upon it before that time.
Judgment affirmed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Otis v. Haseltine · 1864-07-01
- Brady v. Reynolds · 1859-07-01
- Geiger v. Clark · 1859-07-01
- Hazeltinte v. Larco · 1857-07-01
- Jones v. Post · 1856-07-01
- Pierce v. Kennedy · 1855-07-01
- Evoy v. Tewksbury · 1855-07-01
- Riggs v. Waldo · 1852-10-15
Cited by
- Loustalot v. Calkins L. A. No. 388 · 1898-05-24
- First National Bank v. Babcock No. 14505 · 1892-03-28
- Fessenden v. Summers No. 6,515 · 1880-12-22
- Crooks v. Tully No. 4255 · 1875-07-01