Neosho Milling Co. v. Farmers' Coop. Warehouse Stock Co.
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Action by the Neosho Milling Company ■■against the Farmers’ Co-operative Warehouse Stock Company and 3. A. Bristor. Judgment for plaintiff, and on appeal the Court of Appeal certified the case applying for instructions.
1Opinion of the CourtLand, J.
The plaintiff sued the defendant «company on its note for 8557.35, and J. A. Bristor, as surety or guarantor. Bristor made his duly attested mark on the back of the note, before its delivery to the payee, and the parol evidence tended to show that he signed the note as surety. On the first hearing, the Court of Appeal so held, but granted a rehearing for the purpose of further considering the question whether Bristor can be deemed a surety under the provisions of Act No. 64 of 1904, relative to negotiable instruments.
Section 63 of that act reads as follows:
“A person placing his signature upon…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Case v. McKinnisOregon Supreme Court · 1923
- Grapes v. WilloughbySupreme Court of Vermont · 1919
- Lewy v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1914
- Murray v. Third Nat. Bank of St. LouisCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1916
- Bank of Conway v. StaryNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1924
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.