Hammell

Stone v. Hammell

Good Law
1889 Cal. LEXIS 1105·3 Cal. Unrep. 128·22 P. 203
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 2, 1889No. 13,024California3,326 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Foote, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant the sum of $1,000 and interest. *130 It is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff, with three other persons, became the sureties of the defendant upon a promissory note, payable to one Byron Stevens, for the sum of $3,000, the money borrowed, for which the note was given, being for the use and benefit of the defendant, and received and used by him alone; that the defendant neglected to pay the note, or any part of it; that Newell, one of the sureties, paid upon the note, as principal and interest, the sum of $3,855, of which sum the defendant repaid him the sum of $1,075 only; that the plaintiff, Stone, about the 1st of August, 1878, changed his residence from the state of California to the state of New York, and the said 1st of August left the state of California, and was absent therefrom until December, 1883; that about the 1st of March, 1884, Newell, the surety who had paid the promissory note to Stevens, demanded of Stone, the plaintiff, that he should pay the sum of $1,000, as plaintiff’s pro rata share of the money which Newell had paid on account of their suretyship on the promissory note; that the…

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.