Armstrong v. Hayward

Decided July 1, 1856

California Supreme Court · decided 1856-07-01

Action on the following promissory note : “$1200. For value received we promise to pay John J. Armstong, the sum of twelve hundred dollars, one year after date, but if said sum is not then paid, the same is to be paid at the expiration of two years after date, with interest at the rate of seven per cent, per year for the ' last year only. “ Silver Mountain Valley, Cal., Feb. 15th, 1853. “ J. Linzee, Alvinza Hayward, “ Oscar L. Chamberlin, Russell Walcott.” The complaint…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1965

4 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 →

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.

¶1Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

¶2A release of one joint debtor is a release of the others, but it must be a technical release under seal.

¶3The entries on the back of the note in this case, can only operate as receipts for so much money; because the payment of part of a debt is not good to discharge the debt, even if it be agreed on.

¶4Nor can this position be affected by the fact, that the part-payments were made before the debt was due; they were not accepted in payment of the whole debt; the entries simply disclose the intention of the holder to look to the other makers for the remainder of the money.

¶5Judgment affirmed.