Cereghino v. Hammer
Synopsis
Guabantz—CoirsTBuerioir of Contbaci.—The defendant executed to the plaintiff two guaranties, one in the words and figures following, and the other similar except in the name of the debtor. ‘ ‘ I do hereby guarantee the payment of this bill against P. * * * (provided said P. acknowledges the amount herein as correct) payment to be made out of the proceeds of his crop for the season of 1876, on or before October I, 1876.
Held: The guaranties sued upon are conditional. The obligation assumed by the guarantor did not extend beyond the amount which should be by him received from the crop clear of incidental expenses. It was for the plaintiff to establish that the condition had happened which made the defendant liable.
The Court : The parties evidently had in contemplation the net proceeds. It will not be presumed that the guarantor assumed an obligation beyond the amount which should be by him received from the crop, clear of incidental expenses. It was for plaintiff to establish that the condition had happened which made defendant liable—that there were proceeds.
Judgment and order affirmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)