Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

17 Cal. 407

Whiting v. Clark

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1861

California Supreme Court · decided 1861-07-01

Suit commenced by Whiting, Goodman & Co., Aug. 26th, 1859, on the following written guaranty : “ San Francisco, Dec. 19th, 1859. “ For a valuable consideration, I hereby guaranty the payment for any goods which Whiting, Goodman & Co. shall deliver to George S. Porter, or his order, on and after this date. , (Signed.) “ G. W. Clark.” The complaint avers, that plaintiffs gave defendant notice that they accepted the guaranty; and afterwards, relying on it, between its date and…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 1978

1 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions

60186118701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

¶1Field, C. J. concurring.

¶2This 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.

¶3Probably 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.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/17/cal/407 · .json · Public domain