Legal Opinion · Dissent

Darden v. Harrison

Texas Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1974No. B-4098Published

1DissentSam D. Johnson, Justice

This dissent is respectfully submitted on the issue of D. M. Darden, Jr.’s accommodation status. An accommodation party must be a surety. Darden was never a surety and there was no intent that he ever becomes such. Darden is therefore not entitled to claim the defense of accommodation maker and the judgments of the *929courts below should accordingly be affirmed.

Section 3.415(a) of the Texas Business & Commerce Code, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, recites, “[a]n accommodation party is one who signs the instrument in any capacity for the purpose of lending his name to another party to it.”…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Brinker v. First Nat. Bank of ClevelandTexas Commission of Appeals · 1931
  2. United Refrigerator Co. v. ApplebaumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. Central Nat. Bank of Waco v. LawsonTexas Commission of Appeals · 1930
  4. First National Bank v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  5. McIntosh v. WhiteMissouri Court of Appeals · 1969

9 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