Gross v. Parrott
California Supreme Court
Gross v. Parrott, 16 Cal. 143 (Cal. 1860)
1860 Cal. LEXIS 190
Cope
Gross v. Parrott
Opinion of the Court
Field, C. J. concurring.
The complaint in this case shows that the plaintiff has no cause of action. The undertaking of the defendant was, that Page, Bacon & Co. should pay at the particular times mentioned in the agreement signed by the creditors of that firm. The effect of the subsequent transactions between the plaintiff and Page, Bacon & Co. was to extend the time of payment, and, of course, to release the defendant, who was a mere surety. He was not a party to these transactions, and the plaintiff is not entitled to relief on the ground of inadvertence and mistake. There was no want of knowledge on his part in relation to the facts, and the mistake, if any, was simply a mistake as to the law.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- GROSS v. PARROTT
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- February 26th, 1855, Page, Bacon & Go. were indebted to plaintiff, and the debt was due. That firm being then unable to pay, an agreement was made between them and plaintiff, dated on that day, by which an extension was to be given the firm of two, four, six and eight months from date—the debt to be paid in equal installments. In consideration of this extension, defendant and others signed and delivered to plaintiff, an instrument dated February 26th, 1855, guaranteeing the payment by P., B. & Co. of such indebtedness in the installments, and at the different times, in said agreement and certificate set forth, conditioned to be void when said certificates were fully paid. In fact, said agreement did not mention certificates. March 13th, 1856, P., B. & Co. issued to plaintiff certificates for his indebtedness in installments, at two, four, six and eight months from that date: Held, that defendant is not liable on his guaranty, which was to pay at the times mentioned in the agreement; that plaintiff, having taken certificates, dated March 13th, 1856, thereby extended the time of payment, and released defendant, who was a mere surety. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief on the ground of mistake, which was of law, and not of fact.