Baker v. Farmers' Tobacco Warehouse Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 68 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. As the contract under which the money was advanced by plaintiff to Hanks & Co. was different from that guarantied by defendants they . are not bound upon their guaranty. 2. A demand on the principal debtor and notice of his default must be given to the guarantor in order to bind him. (2 Parsons on Contracts, p. 29.) 3. The contract sued on in this case is a contract of guaranty and not of suretyship.
Read the full summary
Case 68 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. As the contract under which the money was advanced by plaintiff to Hanks & Co. was different from that guarantied by defendants they . are not bound upon their guaranty. 2. A demand on the principal debtor and notice of his default must be given to the guarantor in order to bind him. (2 Parsons on Contracts, p. 29.) 3. The contract sued on in this case is a contract of guaranty and not of suretyship. (Brandt on Suretyship and Guaranty, sec. 1. p. 2; Kellogg, &c., v. Dana, &c., 2 Met., 217; Marshall v. Peck, &c., 1 Dana, 610.)…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BENNETT
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellants executed to the appellee the following writing:
“Carrollton, Ky., August 2, 1889.
“We agree to and with the Farmers’ Tobacco Warehouse Company that Hanks & Co., of Carrollton, will well and faithfully carry out and fulfill their contract with said warehouse company in the advance of supplies and money to farmers on growing crops. And that said Hanks & Co. will pay over and return to said warehouse all amounts so advanced on the present growing crops.
“(Signed) Baker, G-inn & Co.”
The appellee sued the appellants as the sureties of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McGowan v. Wells' TrusteeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1919
- City of Covington v. State Tax CommissionCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1929
- Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. CassidyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1922