Mickle v. Sanchez
| Decision Date | 01 December 1850 |
| Citation | 1 Cal. 200 |
| Parties | MICKLE, ET AL. v. SANCHEZ. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. A demurrer was filed to the complaint, and the cause was heard and decided in the Superior Court upon the demurrer, and judgment rendered thereon in favor of the plaintiffs. The case, without the formality of a regular appeal, was submitted to this Court by stipulation of the respective attorneys, under the agreement that the decision of the Court upon the question presented by the demurrer should be final.
Alexander Campbell, for the Plaintiffs.
John Chetwood, for Defendant.
By the Court, BENNETT, J. The papers show that one Maiben, of Valparaiso, was indebted to the plaintiffs, a firm doing business at San Francisco under the name of E. Mickle & Co. in the sum of $3000, for commissions, and to the firm of Mickle & Co. of Valparaiso, the correspondents of the plaintiffs, in the further sum of $6000. The plaintiffs had, in their hands, goods consigned to them by Maiben of the value of $5514 50, at the market value, over and above all probable charges and commissions thereon. To secure the indebtedness of $6000 to the house of Mickle & Co. of Valparaiso, one Bernardino Sanchez executed a bond to the plaintiffs in the penal sum of $12,000, conditioned that, if, upon the receipt of a letter from the firm of Mickle & Co. it should appear that Maiben had paid such indebtedness, the bond should be void, otherwise to remain in force.
On the 20th of May, 1850, the letter mentioned in the bond was received, wherein it appeared that Maiben was indebted to the firm of Mickle & Co. in the sum of $6514 50. It further appeared from such letter that Maiben had become insolvent and was unable to pay his debts, but there is no averment of his insolvency in the declaration.
After the receipt of this letter and on the 23d day of May, 1850, an arrangement was made between the plaintiffs and Bernardino Sanchez, in pursuance of which the above mentioned bond was taken up und a new one executed in the penal sum of $4000. The condition of this latter bond was, that if, on the sale of the balance of the goods in the hands of the plaintiffs, and the subsequent winding up of the accounts of Maiben with them, the nett proceeds should be sufficient to cancel the indebtedness of Maiben to the plaintiffs, and to the house of Mickle & Co. of Valparaiso, the obligation was to be void.
On the 27th day of Juno, 1850,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shannon Copper Co. v. Potter
... ... v. Witmer Bros., 143 Cal. 306, 77 ... P. 61; Stockton S. & L. Co. v. Purvis, 112 Cal. 236, ... 53 Am. St. Rep. 210, 44 P. 561; Mickle v. Sanchez, 1 ... Cal. 200; Wilson v. Alcatraz Asphalt Co., 142 Cal ... 182, 75 P. 787; O'Brien v. Miller, 168 U.S. 287, ... 18 S.Ct. 140, 42 ... ...
-
Brown v. Ball
...precedent to the guarantor's liability, the performance of this condition must be alleged in the complaint against the guarantor. Mickle v. Sanchez, 1 Cal. 200; 20 1487; Rev. Codes 1905, § 6890, P 4, § 6892. The affidavit must make it appear that a good cause of action exists, or it must fa......
-
American Center for Education, Inc. v. Cavnar
...'so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other.' (Civ.Code, § 1641; Mickle v. Sanchez, 1 Cal. 200, 202; Colonial Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Redwood Empire Title Co., 236 Cal.App.2d 186, 192, 46 Cal.Rptr. 16; Lawrence Block Co. v. Pals......