Ford, Eaton & Co. v. Harris
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 30 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL FROM PLOY'D CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The writing was not a proposition1 to guaranty ‘which would have required notice of acceptance, but was an actual guaranty and required no notice.
Read the full summary
Case 30 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL FROM PLOY'D CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The writing was not a proposition1 to guaranty ‘which would have required notice of acceptance, but was an actual guaranty and required no notice. Brandt on Suretyships and Guarantees, 2d ed. vol. 1, pages 289-90. 2. But if the notice was necessary, the evidence shows that the guarantors knew that credit had been extended to Osborn on the guaranty, and knowing this it was their duty to protect themselves, or to have notified appellants that they would no longer he held responsible under the guaranty as they reserved the right to…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Lewis
In the fall of 1887 appellees executed to appellants, doing business as wholesale merchants in Cincinnati, O., under the firm name of Ford, Eaton & Co., this writing:
Prestonburg, Ky., 1887.
“Ford, Eaton & Co. — We hereby guarantee the payment of any bill that J. M. Osborn may purchase from you within *171ninety days from date of purchase, to the extent of $200. This guaranty is intended to cover a running account, and is to be binding upon us until we notify you to'the contrary in writing. ■ “JAMES P. HARRIS,
• “ABRAHAM WINMAN.’i
November 27, 1887, Osborn delivered the guaranty to, and thereupon…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dolner v. The MonticelloU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1870
3Cited by3 opinions
- American Surety Co. v. WhiteheadTexas Commission of Appeals · 1932
- Burns v. PooleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Greer Machinery Co. v. SearsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1902