Darden v. Harrison
Texas Supreme Court
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
- Brinker v. First Nat. Bank of ClevelandTexas Commission of Appeals · 1931
- United Refrigerator Co. v. ApplebaumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Central Nat. Bank of Waco v. LawsonTexas Commission of Appeals · 1930
- First National Bank v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- McIntosh v. WhiteMissouri Court of Appeals · 1969
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.