Rector v. McCarthy
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Crittenden Circuit Court in Chancery. James E. Riddick, Judge. The guaranty in this case was a continuing one, running until the notes were paid.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Crittenden Circuit Court in Chancery. James E. Riddick, Judge. The guaranty in this case was a continuing one, running until the notes were paid. The contract was that the appellees should pay the interest on the notes, which by terms was interest from date until paid. 31 Ark. 626 ; 40 id. 120; 32 id. 572; Jb. 616; Id. 165; 36 id. 480; 49 id. 427; 51 id. 204. The court below misconceived the effect of 43 N. Y. 194 and 44 id. 677. In those cases there was no contract to pay interest after maturity. Guarantors are liable for the interest on notes the same as the makers. Perley on…
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, C. J.
Sam J. Churchill executed to appellant his two promissory notes, in the following form : “[$1083.33] — Little Rock, Ark., Jan. 1, 1890. On or before the 1st day of January, 1892, for value received, I promise to pay H. M. Rector one thousand and eighty-three dollars and thirty-three cents, with interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum from date until paid ; interest payable annually. As witness my hand, the date above written. Sam J. Churchill.” Upon this note the appellees made the following guaranty : “We guaranty the payment of the interest on the above note. [Signed] McCarthy &…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hamilton v. . Van RensselaerNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Melick v. . KnoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
3Cited by7 opinions
- Union Oil Co. of Calif. v. LullOregon Supreme Court · 1960
- Merritt v. HaasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Bousquet v. WardSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Green v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1974
- In re Estate of FrogaleFairfax County Circuit Court · 1997
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.