Jones v. Britt
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky. This veas an action against guarantors under an instrument in writing, in these words: ‘•Memorandum of agreement, between the Southern Peanut Company and T. C. Britt, W. O. Britt, Geo.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky. This veas an action against guarantors under an instrument in writing, in these words: ‘•Memorandum of agreement, between the Southern Peanut Company and T. C. Britt, W. O. Britt, Geo. C. Thompson and W. F. Bradshaw, Jr., all of Paducah, Ky., parties of the first part, and J. I>. Jones, of Bakerville, Train., party of tho second part, witnesseth: “That, whereas, the Southern Peanut Company is indebted to the said J. 1). Jones in sums as follows: “81,000.00, evidenced by note, due July 4, 1007. “81,000.00.…
1Opinion of the CourtLurton, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The question arises upon the construction of the contract of guaranty. The promise of one to pay the debt of another must not only be in writing, but it must rest upon a good consideration, which may be one passing directly between the guarantee and the guarantor, or some benefit or advantage to the principal debtor or disadvantage to the creditor. Thus, an agreement to forbear pressing a debt for a definite time, or for a reasonable time, or to grant a renewal' or extension, is a detriment to the creditor, and is a good consideration for a contract by a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Davis v. WellsSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Hoffmann v. MayaudCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1899
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bond v. John V. Farwell Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- Matter of SlodovDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1976