Barnes Cycle Co. v. Reed
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania. This was an action at law by the Barnes Cycle Company against C. M. Beed, upon an alleged contract of guaranty. The trial court directed a verdict for defendant, and overruled a motion for new trial (84 Fed. 608), and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
ACHESON, Circuit Judge.
We agree with the circuit court that the paper of February 10, 1896, was not an unconditional guaranty. *482complete in itself without notice. This conclusion is fully sustained hy the ruling in Machine Co. v. Richards, 115 U. S. 524, 6 Sup. Ct. 173. We are not able to discover any substantial difference between the guaranty here and the one in that case. As was there said in respect to the general words “for value received,” the acknowledgment in the paper here in suit of the receipt of one dollar, without stating by whom paid, is consistent, with payment by the principal…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Davis Sewing MacHine Co. v. RichardsSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Adams, Cunningham & Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Reynolds v. DouglassSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Bascom v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Louisville Manufacturing Co. v. WelchSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bond v. John V. Farwell Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- Clark v. H. Hackfeld & Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1904
- McConnon & Co. v. LaursenNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912