Cunningham v. Norton

Citations

• 5 Cal. Unrep. 35
• 40 P. 491
• 1895 Cal. LEXIS 1131

Syllabus

<p>Guaranty—Consideration.—In an Action by an Assignee on a Guaranty executed to plaintiff’s husband for rent under a lease of his property making rents payable to her, plaintiff and her husband testified that the guaranty, the date of which was blank, was executed before the delivery of the lease, and as part of the same transaction. The guarantor admitted that when he signed the guaranty he did not know whether the lease had been delivered, or whether the lessee was in possession of the premises. Held, that the guaranty was good under Civil Code, section 2792, providing that, where an original obligation is entered into in consideration of a guaranty, no other consideration is necessary for the guaranty.</p> <p>Guaranty.—An Objection of No Consideration for a guaranty cannot be made where the complaint thereon alleges that it was made for a good consideration, and this is not denied in the answer.</p> <p>Guaranty.—No Notice of the Assignment of a Guaranty fo-r rent is necessary before suit by the assignee, where the guarantor has not made any payment of rent to the assignor.1</p> <p>Guaranty-—Assignment.—The Assent of the Guarantor to the assignment of a guaranty for rent is-not necessary.</p> <p>Guaranty to Pay Bent.—In an Action on a Guaranty to pay rent “which remains due and unpaid,” it is immaterial whether the lessee could have paid the rent or not.</p>