Legal Opinion

Zuehlke v. Engel

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1938PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

The words “for value received we hereby guarantee the payment of the within note at maturity or any time thereafter with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum until paid” are appropriate to express an intention to be bound as guarantors, and persons signing such an undertaking have not signed as indorsers. The additional words “waiving demand of payment, protest and notice of protest” do not change the character of the contract. The controlling language is practically identical with that held to be a contract of guaranty in Farmers State Bank v. Hansen (1921), 174 Wis. 100, 182 N.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. CliftonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  2. Farmers State Bank of Waupaca v. HansenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
  3. M. J. Wallrich Land & Lumber Co. v. EbenreiterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Bishop v. GenzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Bergmann v. RollWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bank Mutual v. S.J. Boyer Construction, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2010
  2. St. Mary's Hospital Medical Center v. TarkentonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1981
  3. Albright v. WeissingerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Bank Mutual v. S.J. Boyer Construction, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API