California Standard Finance Corp. v. Bessolo & Gualano, Inc.

Good Law
118 Cal. App. 327·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 226·5 P.2d 480
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 16, 1931Docket No. 7006.California1,353 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Houser, J.

The pertinent facts upon which this appeal depends are set forth in the opinion in the ease of California Standard Finance Corp. v. Bessolo & Gualano, Inc., ante, p. 323 [ 5 Pac. (2d) 478 ], this day filed in this court, and to which opinion for said facts reference may be had.

It appears that the greater criticism by the appellant of the judgment rendered by the lower court is leveled not only at the amount of fees allowed to the plaintiff for the attorneys who represented the plaintiff in the action, but as well at the conclusion that the appellant was at all liable for said attorney’s fees.

Because, according to the findings of fact which were signed by the judge of the trial court, it appears that the liability of the appellant herein to pay attorney’s fees to the plaintiff in said action was identical with that of its co-defendant Fidelity Union Casualty Company, and depended, not upon the original obligation of- the appellant herein to do so, as expressed in the promissory note, but upon the separate and independent guaranty of each of such defendants, it is clear that even from such standpoint the contention of this appellant, to the effect that no liability was incurred…

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.