Menzner v. Marathon County Bank

The law is well settled that there must be a new consideration moving either tO' the maker or the guarantor of a note, or to both, or a detriment to the payee of the note, in order to give validity to an agreement guaranteeing the payment of an existing indebtedness of the principal. John A. Tolman & Co. v. Infusina, 170 Wis. 433, 435, 175 N. W. 916; Bank of Commerce v. Ross, 91 Wis. 320, 324, 64 N. W. 993.

It is equally well settled that an extension of the time of payment is a sufficient consideration for the promise of a guarantor. 21 Ruling Case Law, 960. A promise to extend time of…