Allen v. Central Savings-Bank
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. A contract of guaranty must be strictly construed. A surety cannot be charged beyond the precise terms of his contract. — Taylor v. McOlung, 2 Houst. 24; Taylor v. Wetmore, 10 Ohio, 490; Smith v. Montgomery, 3 Texas, 199; Stratton v. JRastall, 2 Term Rep, 366; Bacon v. Ohesney, 1 Stark.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. A contract of guaranty must be strictly construed. A surety cannot be charged beyond the precise terms of his contract. — Taylor v. McOlung, 2 Houst. 24; Taylor v. Wetmore, 10 Ohio, 490; Smith v. Montgomery, 3 Texas, 199; Stratton v. JRastall, 2 Term Rep, 366; Bacon v. Ohesney, 1 Stark. N. P. 192; Walrath v. Thompson, 6 Hill, 540; Bigelow v. Benton, 14 Barb. 123; Dobbins v. Bradley, 17 Wend. 422; Gates v. McKee, 13 N. Y. 232; Miller v. Stewart, 9 Wheat. 680. A contract of guaranty must receive the construction which is most probable and natural under the…
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
It appears from the pleadings and evidence in this case that Eugene Shine deposited with defendant a note made by Isaac Walker, maturing in 1870, with interest at six per cent, payable semi-annually. The note was secured by deed of trust upon real estate, and was for $15,000.
In the spring of 1868, and for some time prior thereto, one Peter O’Neil, and a son-in-law of Shine, named Doyle, were copartners in the pork business, in St. Louis, under *68the name of O’Neil & Co. The bank account of the firm was kept with defendant, under the name of O’Neil alone. On January 27, 1868, defendant…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Grand Lodge v. ElsnerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Jobes v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1919
- Sedalia, Warsaw & Southern Railway Co. v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- State ex rel. Rosenblatt v. StillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1881