Community National Bank v. Loumos
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
1. The ruling *831of the judge that the guaranty executed by Loumos, Halliday and the Feinsteins was both absolute and continuing was not, as asserted by Loumos, a contradiction in terms. To the extent that Allen v. Pike, 3 Cush. 238 (1849), supports such an assertion, that case must be regarded as having been impliedly overruled by subsequent decisions which recognize that a guaranty can be both absolute and continuing. See Standard Plumbing Supply Co. v. LaConte, 277 Mass. 497, 499-501 (1931); Mayo v. Bloomberg, 290 Mass. 168, 169-171 (1935); Provident Co-op. Bank v. James Talcott, Inc., 358…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. BlakelyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Merrimack Valley National Bank v. BairdMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Provident Co-Operative Bank v. James Talcott, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1970
- Narkin v. City of SpringfieldMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1977
- The Merchants National Bank v. StoneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Federal Financial Co. v. SavageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
- Federal Financial Co. v. SavageMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1999
- United States Trust Co. v. BenjoyaMassachusetts Superior Court · 1981