Legal Opinion

Provident Bank v. Gast

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1979No. 78-571PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCelebkezze, C. J.

The fundamental issue raised in this appeal requires a statutory analysis of R. C. 1303.72(A) (1) (Uniform Commercial Code Section 3—606[1] [a]), and can be phrased as follows: When a holder of a note releases two of four co-guarantors from their guaranty, does that release totally discharge the remainiixg guarantors or does it discharge them only to the extent of their right to contribution from the previously released parties?

The trial judge concluded that the discharge was limited, in that the $15,000 guaranty of the appellees was reduced by $7,500, or the extent of their riglxt of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Beneficial Finance Co. v. HusnerNew York Supreme Court · 1975
  2. First National Bank, Giddings v. HelwigCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1971
  3. Christensen v. McAteeOregon Supreme Court · 1970

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. First City Bank, N.A., a National Banking Association v. Air Capitol Aircraft Sales, Inc., a Kansas Corporation, and Gary R. Morgan, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987
  2. Crown Life Insurance v. LaBonteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Federal Land Bank v. TaggartOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. First Arlington National Bank v. StathisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1983
  5. Bishop v. United Missouri Bank of CarthageMissouri Court of Appeals · 1983

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

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

Powered by the Exa API