Tischhauser

Tischhauser v. Prentice

Good Law
1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 112·30 Cal. App. 699·159 P. 226
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 10, 1916Civ. No. 1456.California1,093 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

The defendants W. J. Bryant and Lorenzo D. Swartwout appeal from an order denying their motion for a new trial. The judgment is founded upon a note for $623, payable to the plaintiff and signed by the defendants Prentice, Bryant, and Swartwout. As stated by counsel for appellants, their chief contentions are that they signed the note and delivered the same to their co-obligor Prentice on a condition which was not performed; that the consideration for the note was illegal; and that their signatures were obtained by fraud exercised by defendant Prentice in procuring such signatures.

At the trial appellants amended their answer and thereby alleged that at the time of accepting the note the plaintiff had full knowledge of the circumstances attending their execution of the note, and knew that the defendants signed said note merely as sureties thereon, and agreed to deal with them in the capacity of sureties and not as principals. But it was admitted at the trial that the note was delivered to plaintiff without knowledge on his part that its delivery was contrary to any instructions given by appellants to Prentice, and their counsel state in their final brief that the law of suretyship…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.