Smith v. Compton
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Beverly Hills National Bank v. Glynn (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)
- Wine Packing Corp. of Cal. v. Voss (Cal. Ct. App. 1940)
- City of Birmingham v. Scott (Ala. 1928)
- Butters v. the Brawley Star (Cal. Ct. App. 1920)
- Levey v. Henderson (Cal. 1917)
- Kraker v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1911)
- Vaca Valley & Clear Lake Railroad v. Mansfield (Cal. 1890)
- Jennings v. First Nat. Bank (Colo. 1889)
- Schlessinger v. Mallard (Cal. 1886)
- Jordan v. Hanson (N.H. 1870)
- Perkins v. Thornburgh (Cal. 1858)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt concurred.
The promise on the part of plaintiff to stay proceedings under his judgment against Richardson, was a condition precedent to the guaranty sued on, and performance on his part should have been alleged and proven, to entitle him to recover against defendants.
This was not done in the opening, and defendant was entitled to a judgment of non-suit.
The defendant, however, after his motion was denied, introduced evidence which enabled plaintiff to supply the defect in his case, and by so doing, waived the objection. See Ringold v. Haven, 1 Cal. Rep., 108.
From the whole record, the right of plaintiff to recover clearly appears 3 and we will not disturb a judgment, when it is evident that a new trial must be attended with the same result.
The judgment is affirmed with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.