Court Opinion

ID: 6731100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 23:12:32.557175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:39.627841
License: Public Domain

Judge Brock
dissenting.
The opinion of the majority reverses and remands for entry of judgment against the defendant Jones in the amount *701of $169.00. This allows plaintiff to recover against defendant Jones upon a note given by defendant Hines to plaintiff to which defendant Jones was not a party. The majority treats the note as the same thing as the contract between defendant Hines and plaintiff, the performance of which was guaranteed by defendant Jones. However, there is no allegation, stipulation, or other evidence that the note sued on by plaintiff was given in payment of the obligation of defendant Hines to plaintiff under the contract. Of course, if the note were given in payment of defendant Hines’ obligation under her contract with plaintiff, the question would arise as to whether such payment discharged defendant Jones from her guarantee of performance of the contract.
I concur in the majority view that the reasons given by the trial judge for dismissing the action against defendant Jones are not valid. However, the judgment of the trial court, in my opinion, reaches the correct result. Therefore, I vote to affirm the dismissal of the action as to defendant Jones.