Schwenker v. Teasdale
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
Each proposition advanced by the appellant as a reason for excusing him from liability upon the note described in the preceding statement, and executed by him, *279was held to be ineffectual as a defense. On the facts found, which outline and condition the controversy between the parties, the conclusions reached by the trial court are warranted.
That the note was not delivered conditionally and for a special purpose so far as the bank is concerned, appears from the evidence strongly tending to show that the note was for the accommodation of Anderson and not the bank. This transaction grew out of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Higgins v. . RidgwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Grannis v. . StevensNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Pauly v. O'BrienU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1895
- Lyons v. BenneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Skagit State Bank v. MoodyWashington Supreme Court · 1915
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Reed v. BuckTexas Supreme Court · 1963
- Central Republic Trust Co. v. EvansIllinois Supreme Court · 1941
- Schmid v. HainesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1935
- Brand v. KorthTexas Supreme Court · 1936
- Banking Commission v. First Wisconsin National Bank of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.