Legal Opinion
Scharnagel v. Furst
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided March 24, 1927No. 8 Div. 854PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
The complaint in this case exhibits the principal contract and the guaranty, and shows performance of the principal contract by the plaintiff, default in the payment of his accounts by the principal contractor, and .default by the guarantors in the payment of their principal’s debt according’ to the terms of their guaranty. These three essentials are all that needed to be shown, and the complaint was not subject to the objections urged by the demurrer. Nesbit v. Bradford, 6 Ala. 746, 750; Leftkovitz v. Bank, 152 Ala. 521, 44 So. 617; 28 Corp. Jur. 1019, § 186. By the terms of the contract,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ettlinger v. . National Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- J. R. Watkins Co. v. HillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Leftkovitz v. First National Bank of GadsdenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1907
- Wadsworth v. DunnamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
- Evans v. KeelandSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Colonial Bank of Alabama v. CokerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1985
- Shur-Gain Feed Div. v. Huntsville ProductionCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1979
- Medley v. SouthTrust Bank of the Quad CitiesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1986
- Ehl v. J. R. Watkins Medical Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1927
- Logan v. WindbiglerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1968
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.