Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ortmeyer Lumber Co. v. Central Surety & Insurance

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 27, 1940No. 34,528Published

1DissentThiele, J.

I dissent. The record discloses that had it not been for the letter of the lumber company that it would extend its name to the contractor so that he might obtain a line of credit at the bank, the surety company would not have signed the bond. The ordinary meaning of the phrase “line of credit” means a margin of credit extended. (See Shneider-Davis Co. v. Hart, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 529, 57 S. W. 903, 904, and American Button-Hole, etc., Machine Co. v. Gurnee, imp. 44 Wis. 49, 62; 37 C. J. 1261.) The effect of the letter was to assure the bonding company the lumber company would stand behind the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Schneider-Davis Co. v. HartCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1900
  2. American Button-Hole, Overseaming & Sewing Machine Co. v. GurneeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878

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

Powered by the Exa API