Henning

Henning v. Wuest

Good Law
1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 371·48 Cal. App. 147·291 P. 713
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 10, 1920Civ. No. 3307.California1,233 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Waste, J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover the sum of $5,750, alleged to be due on a promissory note¡ executed and delivered to him by the defendant and E. A. Edmonds. Judgment was entered for the defendant. Motions were made for a new trial, and for the entering of a different judgment, on the ground that the facts found wore not sufficient to support the conclusions of law. Both motions were denied and the appeal is from the judgment.

The defendant interposed as a defense, and the court found, that on April 28, 1914, II. B. Tanner and John A. Watson, with the plaintiff as an accommodation maker, made and delivered a promissory note to the Marine National Bank of San Diego, payable sixty days after date, for the sum of $5,750; that thereupon, and on the same day, defendant and Edmonds executed and delivered to plaintiff, the note sued upon, also payable sixty days after date, to guarantee plaintiff against all liability by reason of his having joined, as accommodation maker, in the note of Tanner and Watson, to the bank; that the promissory note executed by Tanner and Watson 'to the Marine National Bank was paid in full and discharged by another note for the sum of $4,600,…

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.