Legal Opinion
Bank of Hoven v. Rausch
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided February 19, 1986No. 14966PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WUEST, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a trial before the court granting recovery on a promissory note. We reverse.
In early April of 1978, Harlan Rausch (Harlan) asked appellee, Bank of Hoven (Bank), to lend him $75,000 for his farming operation. Bank informed Harlan that his credit was not sufficient to acquire the loan unless his father, William Rausch (William), cosigned the promissory note. On April 18, 1978, a note was executed and Harlan received the loan he requested. At trial, a promissory note bearing William’s signature was admitted as evidence of the loan. William…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Rakestraw v. RodriguesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Cooper v. Union BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- United Bank v. Mesa N. O. Nelson Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1979
- Thermo Contracting Corp. v. Bank of New JerseySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1976
- FIRST NAT. BANK IN ALBUQUERQUE v. AbrahamNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1982
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Ziegler Furniture & Funeral Home, Inc. v. CicmanecSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
- Matter of Estate of JetterSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- Bank of Hoven v. RauschSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1989
- First State Bank of Sinai v. HylandSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
- Van Dyke v. Coburn Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1989
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.