Loeb v. Christie

WASTE, C. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered against him in an action based on an unconditional guarantee of a promissory note payable to plaintiff, which guarantee was executed May 19, 1930. The note so guaranteed by defendant was secured by a trust deed and at the time of this suit the power of sale therein given had not been exercised by the plaintiff.

[418]

It is first urged that an action will not lie against a guarantor of a secured obligation until the security has been exhausted. On many occasions it has been declared by this court to be the rule that the guarantor’s liability may be enforced without first resorting to the mortgage security.

(Adams

v.

Wallace,

119 Cal. 67, 70, 71 [51 Pac. 14] ;

San Francisco etc. Seminary

v.

Monterey etc. Co.,

179 Cal. 166, 172 [175 Pac. 693];

Kinsel

v.

Ballou,

151 Cal. 754, 760-762 [91 Pac. 620] ;

Carver

v.

Steele,

116 Cal. 116, 119 [47 Pac. 1007, 58 Am. St. Rep. 156] ;

Cook

v.

Mesmer,

164 Cal. 332, 340 [128 Pac. 917] ;

Martin

v.

Becker,

169 Cal. 301, 305-307 [146 Pac. 665, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 171].) In the ease first cited it is declared that “if she be a guarantor for the payment of the debt upon default, then it would matter not whether there were other security for the payment of that