|
P0179 REVIEW DENIED A surety's undertaking to be liable for the principal's failure to perform its duty does not bind the surety to a judgment obtained against the principal, so evidence of such a judgment should be excluded in an action against the surety; however, evidence of testimony admitted at the trial of the action against the principal should not be excluded if it would be relevant for impeachment purposes in the action against the surety.CitationNTS v SUPERIOR COURT (Surety's Obligation) 97 CA4 415 [See: CivC 3103; Mahana v Alexander 88 CA 111; NTS v Commercial 89 CA4 1000; T&R v St Paul 23 CA4 738; Washington v Superior Court 62 CA4 981]
|
|
