Hardester v. Tate
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Texas Circuit Court. — Hon. W. N. Evans, Judge. It will be observed that the note sued on by appellant was signed by the defendants and Canoy in the face thereof, and the note stated that “we, or either of us, promise to pay,-” etc.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Texas Circuit Court. — Hon. W. N. Evans, Judge. It will be observed that the note sued on by appellant was signed by the defendants and Canoy in the face thereof, and the note stated that “we, or either of us, promise to pay,-” etc. We submit that this note was a joint obligation, and that all of the parties signing the same were maters, and there being no notice whatever to Hardester, either verbal or otherwise, that the defendants signed said not in any other capacity than as maters, the presumption is that they did sign as maters, and tnowledge to Hardester will not be…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
— Action, on the following note, to-wit: “Twelve months after date we or either of us promises to pay John Hardester or, order $100 for value received of him, with eight per cent interest from date until paid, this twentieth day of September, 1894.
(Signed.)
Philip Oanoy,
P. M. Tate,
John (x) Merrill.”
Tate and Merrill only were sued. Their defense was that they signed the note as sureties for Oanoy; that after the maturity of the note the plainitff for a valuable consideration agreed with Oanoy to extend the time of payment for a definite period, and that this contract was entered into without…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gipson v. OgdenIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Moore v. PaineNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Chilton v. Robbins, Paynter & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- Fay v. TowerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- O'Howell v. KirkMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Long v. ShaferMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914