Schweitzer v. Irwin's
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 67 — PETITION ORDINARY 1. Where a surety holds himself out as principal otherwise than by signing the note without designating whether he is principal or surety, he is estopped to show that he was surety as much as if he had been designated principal in the body of the note.
Read the full summary
Case 67 — PETITION ORDINARY 1. Where a surety holds himself out as principal otherwise than by signing the note without designating whether he is principal or surety, he is estopped to show that he was surety as much as if he had been designated principal in the body of the note. Picot v. Siguago, 22 Mo., 587; McMillan v. Park, 64 Mo., 286. 1. An obligor in a note can show that he was only a surety so as to be protected in his rights as surety, without alleging or proving the scienter on the part of the obligee. Lewis v. Harpin, 5 B. M., 646; Emmons v. Overton, 18 B. M., 647; Chapeze v.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE GUFFY
delivered the opinion oe the court.
The appellant Joseph Schweitzer instituted this action in the Bracken Circuit Court against George L. Bradford and Elizabeth N. Irwin, executrix of W. J. Irwin to recover judgment on a note for $422, dated 9th day of August, 1883, executed to him by George L. Bradford and W. J. Irwin, credited by $100 March 11,1890. No defense was interposed by Bradford, but the executrix of W. J. Irwin pleaded that *402W. J. Irwin was only security of Bradford, and also pleaded and relied on tbe statute of limitation for a defense. Tbe reply traverses tbe allegations…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Rose v. EdmondsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1937
- Steinke v. North Vernon Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1921
- Northcutt v. NicholsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
- Denham v. Town of WallinsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930
- Morris v. MorrisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1928
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.