Bissenger v. Guiteman Bros.
Tennessee Supreme Court
FROM KNOX. Appeal in error from tbe judgment of the Circuit Court, February Term, 1869. E. T. Hall, J. 1. It was competent to- show by parol.-the collateral agreement that the notes should be' held for nothing if defendants compromised with all their creditors: oiting 1 Greenl.
Read the full summary
FROM KNOX. Appeal in error from tbe judgment of the Circuit Court, February Term, 1869. E. T. Hall, J. 1. It was competent to- show by parol.-the collateral agreement that the notes should be' held for nothing if defendants compromised with all their creditors: oiting 1 Greenl. Ev., s. 302. 2. The notes given by Bissenger were given as collateral security for the firm debt, for this is in fact the meaning of the agreement, that upon the extinction of the firm debt the notes should become void. 3. The condition precedent, “that all the other creditors should accept,” was waived by the receipt…
1Opinion of the CourtNicholsON, C. J.
This is an action of debt commenced in the Circuit Court of Knox county in 1868 on a note for 802.25, dated at Knoxville, on the 12th of November, 1866, payable twelve months after date to Guite-man Brothers & Co., and signed by S. Bissenger.
To the declaration there were three pleas — nil debit, payment, and a special plea — in which it is averred that, at the time of making the note sued on, defendant Bissenger was a partner in a firm of Julius Ochs & Co., of which the members were Julius Ochs, Nancy Frank, and defendant; and that said firm being indebted to plaintiff by account, defendant…
2Cited by6 opinions
- McGannon v. FarrellTennessee Supreme Court · 1919
- Patterson v. Anderson Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1958
- Billings v. EverettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- Trumbull v. O'HaraSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
- Barton v. BartonCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.