407 F.2d 299 (D.C. Cir. 1968), 21325, Frishman v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
|Docket Nº:||21325, 21332.|
|Citation:||407 F.2d 299|
|Party Name:||Bernard Lyon FRISHMAN, Appellant, v. CANDIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, a Corporation, Appellee. CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Bernard Lyon FRISHMAN, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||May 09, 1968|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|
Argued March 13, 1968.
William L. Kaplan, Washington, D.C., with whom Karl G. Feissner, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant in No. 21325 and appellee in No. 21332.
Benjamin W. Dulany, Washington, D.C., for appellee in No. 21325 and appellant in No. 21332.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge.
PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit Judge:
These cases are cross-appeals from the same judgment and were consolidated here for argument and disposition. In the early part of 1963 the Abel Construction Co., Ltd., negotiated a loan in the amount of $185, 000 from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. As security for the loan the Bank demanded assignment of the Company's accounts receivable and the personal guarantees of its four shareholders. On March 20, 1963, the parties met to consummate the transaction. The Company signed a demand promissory note and made an assignment of its receivables, but it delivered only three of the four required guarantees. The Bank credited the Company's account with the face amount of the loan. Thereafter, on March 25, 1963, the guarantee of the fourth stockholder, Mr. Bernard Frishman (party to the present litigation), was signed and delivered to the Bank. In June the Bank, pursuant to its custom when guarantees are not executed before an officer of the Bank, wrote Mr. Frishman requesting him to place his signature on a copy of the guarantee to assure that he had indeed signed the original personally and understood its import. Mr. Frishman replied that he guaranteed only ten per cent of the loan and that amount for a period of only one year. The Bank responded with a rejection of these conditions, and Mr. Frishman then authenticated a copy of the guarantee.
The guarantee was not limited to the amount of the original loan but included all future indebtedness to the Bank incurred by the Company. Subsequently the Company experienced financial difficulty and made an 'overdraft' at the Bank to meet its payroll, which the Bank accepted in the amount of $12, 432.59. In October, 1963, the Bank became concerned about its investment and called the note. The Company took bankruptcy. The Bank then made a demand on Mr. Frishman for $198, 273.99 upon his guarantee, which figure represented the original loan of $185, 000 with interest, plus the overdraft. Mr. Frishman declined payment, and the Bank sued him. Judgment was entered against him in the District Court in the sum of $12, 042.00, plus interest on that amount from October 23, 1963, plus costs, and in his favor on the balance of the claim. That judgment is the matter now before...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP