Legal Opinion

Peter v. Finzer

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 1928No. 25196PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEberly, J.

This is an action at law upon a promissory note. The defense was, that at the time the action was instituted, the defendant’s actual relation to the paper sued upon was that of a surety who had been discharged by reason of a lawful extension of the time of maturity, without his con*382sent, made by the holder, to the then principal upon the obligation. Trial was had to a jury, resulting in a verdict for the defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.

The essential facts out of which this action arose, as disclosed by the record, are as follows: On March 2, 1918, defendant Finzer, for a valuable…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Union Trust Co. v. McGintyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
  2. Vanderford v. Farmers' & Mechanics' National BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1907
  3. Cellers v. MeachemOregon Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Wolstenholme v. SmithUtah Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Smith v. Minneapolis Threshing MacH. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Bainter v. AppelNebraska Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Mortgage Guarantee Co. v. ChotinerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Behrens v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Continental Mutual Savings Bank v. ElliottWashington Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Koblegard Co. v. MaxwellWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1945

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