California Supreme Court, 1861

Whiting v. Clark

California Supreme Court · Decided July 1, 1861 · Baldwin

17 Cal. 407

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Regents of University of California v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (Cal. 1978)
Duerr v. Sloan (Cal. Ct. App. 1920)
Geiger v. Creative Impact Incorporated (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2020)
Ingalls v. Bell (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)
Gaffigan v. Lawton (Cal. 1934)
Anderson v. Shaffer (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
Kinsel v. Ballou (Cal. 1907)
Towle v. Sweeney (Cal. Ct. App. 1905)
Mulvane v. Sedgley (Kan. 1901)
Wilkinson-Gaddis Co v. Van Riper (N.J. 1899)
Carver v. Steele (Cal. 1897)
Nelson v. First Nat. Bank (8th Cir. 1895)
Esberg-Bachman Leaf-Tobacco Co. v. Heid (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1894)
Bull v. Coe (Cal. 1888)

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

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. concurring.

This suit is brought on a guaranty by defendant of a debt of or *411for one Porter. The only thing set up in defense which it is necessary to notice is, the plea that no suit has been brought to charge the original debtor, and that the Statute of Limitations bars the claim as to him. But this is no defense. After legally charging the defendant, the plaintiff was not bound to sue the principal; at least, unless requested by the guarantor; and the surety had in his own hands the means of protecting himself from loss by delay, by paying the debt and then suing the principal, or by filing a bill to compel the creditor to sue. By the guaranty the defendant became the debtor of the creditor, and no other limitation could defeat the claim than that prescribed by law for the class of indebtedness evidenced by the paper.

Probably the charge of fifty-six dollars for interest is erroneous; but this matter should have been brought distinctly to the notice of the referee, and objection taken to the judgment and finding on this account.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.