Legal Opinion

Rosendale State Bank v. Holland

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 7, 1928PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stevens, J.(1) “The appellant was liable as maker to the plaintiff notwithstanding he was only an accommodation party.” Schoenwetter v. Schoenwetter, 164 Wis. 131, 135, 159 N. W. 737. Appellant was a person primarily liable because as a joint maker he was, by the terms of the note, absolutely required to pay the same. Sec. 116.01, Stats. Being a person primarily liable to pay the note he did not stand in the shoes of a surety and was not discharged by the extension of the time granted by the bank.(2) Appellant’s liability on the note was not discharged when the note was stamped “Paid” and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Schoenwetter v. SchoenwetterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Wisconsin Trust Co. v. CousinsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1920

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Mortgage Guarantee Co. v. ChotinerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  2. James Employees Credit Union v. HawleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Bosworth v. GreilingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Elkhorn Production Credit Asso. v. JohnsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Barsness v. TiegenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API