Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rhodd Et Ux. v. Hembree

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 15, 1944No. 30944Published

1DissentHurst, J.

I think the majority opinion reaches the wrong conclusion and is unsound in two respects.

1. It adheres to the view that a guardian who holds a secured promissory note payable to “Tom C. Waldrep, Guardian of Una Hembree, a minor,” may accept in full satisfaction thereof a renewal note made payable to “Tom C. Waldrep” only. This holding is contrary to our previous decisions that a guardian, in the absence of authorization by the court, is without authority to accept anything other than the full amount, in cash, owing thereon in satisfaction of a promissory note due the ward. Mason v. Ackley, 52…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Hayes v. Massachusetts Mutual Life InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Winona Oil Co. v. BarnesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  3. Bunnell v. BunnellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1901
  4. Garrett v. Reid-Cashion Land & Cattle Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. CowenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916

11 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