Ford v. Hendricks

Decided July 1, 1868

California Supreme Court · decided 1868-07-01

This was an action upon a promissory note, made by defendant Hendricks, and indorsed by defendant Reed. The note and indorsement were in the following words : “$1,720. Pacheco, April 8, 1862. “ One day after date I promise to pay to the order of Alvin Ford seventeen hundred and twenty dollars, for value received, with interest at two per cent per month till paid. “W. T. Hendricks.” “I hereby waive demand, notice of non-payment and protest.

Relies on Riggs v. Waldo · Jones v. Post · Otis v. Haseltine

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1868-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1898

6 state decisions

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 →

By the Court, Sanderson, J.:

¶1As 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.)

¶2It 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.)

¶3The 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.

¶4Judgment affirmed.