Legal Opinion

Wilcoxson v. McMullin

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided December 14, 1936No. 13,802PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Mr. Justice Burke, sitting for Mr. Chief Justice Campbell,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiffs in error are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, or as Wilcoxson and the hank respectively; defendant in error as defendant, or McMullin; one Balph P. Henderson, as Henderson, and one Douglas E. Clark, as Clark.

The bank owned two notes, one signed by Henderson, the other by Henderson and Clark. These McMullin, in writing, agreed to pay under specified conditions. Plaintiff, relying thereon, brought this action. McMullin answered that the conditions of his guaranty had not been met, that…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. RichardsIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Jordan v. MadsenUtah Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Sutton, Steele & Steele Manufacturing, Milling & Mining Co. v. McCulloughSupreme Court of Colorado · 1918
  4. Quapaw Pumping & Royalty Co. v. CamblinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Yama v. SigmanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1945
  2. Yama v. SigmanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API