Rucker v. Republic Supply Co.

Decision Date21 June 1966
Docket NumberNo. 40969,40969
Citation415 P.2d 951
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
PartiesRobert RUCKER, Jr., Plaintiff in Error, v. REPUBLIC SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant in Error.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where the language of a contract of guaranty is clear and explicit, its purpose and meaning must be ascertained therefrom, without resort to extrinsic evidence.

2. In construing a guaranty to determine the intent of the parties, it should be taken most strongly against the guarantor and in favor of the creditor.

3. In a civil action triable to a jury, where a jury is waived and the cause is tried to the Court, the findings of the trial court have the force and effect of a jury verdict; and where the finding is a general one, there being no errors at law, the judgment will not be disturbed on appeal if any competent evidence reasonably tends to support the conclusions of the trial court.

Appeal from the District Court, Cleveland County; Elvin J. Brown, Judge.

Action by Creditor (Republic Supply Company) against Guarantor (Robert H. Rucker, Jr.) for a money judgment based on a written Guaranty Agreement. Judgment for Creditor and Guarantor appeals. Affirmed.

T. R. Benedum, Norman, Gomer Smith, Jr., Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Fielding D. Haas and Person E. Woodall, Norman, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Robert H. Rucker, Jr., as plaintiff in error (herein called Guarantor) from a judgment in favor of Republic Supply Company, defendant in error (herein called Creditor) on a Guaranty Agreement.

To induce Creditor (Republic Supply Company) to extend credit to Debtor (Bluff Creek Oil Company of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma), Guarantor (Robert H. Rucker, Jr.) executed an unconditional revolving, general, continuing, written, Guaranty Agreement, dated August 1, 1950, which was never revoked. Subsequently, Creditor extended credit to Debtor, on the strength of the Guaranty, in the form of an open account. On November 1, 1955, the form of all indebtedness was changed from open account to promissory note. On March 30, 1962, the form of indebtedness was again changed by reducing the note to judgment. April 8, 1963, Creditor sued Guarantor, alleging the judgment to be covered by the Guaranty.

Jury was waived, trial had and a money judgment rendered by the court in favor of the Creditor against Guarantor on the Guaranty Agreement. Guarantor appeals asserting bar of five year limitations statute, 12 O.S.1961, § 95(1), and that the evidence is insufficient to establish Debtor as corporation covered by guaranty.

The Guaranty provided that

'* * * Guarantor hereby unconditionally and absolutely guarantee to Creditor, its successors or assigns, punctual payment at maturity or when due of Any and all indebtedness of every kind and character, whenever and however incurred, which Debtor may now or hereafter owe to Creditor, regardless of the nature and form of such indebtedness, Including judgments, promissory notes, open accounts, and any and all other forms of indebtedness, whether secured or unsecured * * *.

'This Guaranty shall be revolving and continuous * * *.

'This Guaranty is a continuing one and shall continue to apply without regard to the form * * * of the indebtedness or obligation guaranteed * * * which indebtedness or obligations or any part thereof, Creditor at its option, may renew, extend, revise, rearrange, or alter, in whole or in part, without notice to or consent of GUARANTOR, from time to time as Creditor may elect without affecting the obligation of this Guaranty * * *'. (Emphasis supplied.)

A guaranty is deemed continuing if it contemplates a future course of dealing, not limited to a single transaction, for an indefinite period of time, 15 O.S.1961, Sec. 336; Hazzard v. General Tire & Rubber Company, 181 Okl. 484, 76 P.2d 257; or until it is revoked, 15 O.S.1961, Sec. 337. A continuing guaranty is deemed a repetition of the extension of credit so long as it is in force. Liability under a continuing guaranty will be deemed to have continued until revoked where it contains no express limitation as to duration of Guarantor's responsibility, 24 Am.Jur. Guaranty, Sec. 63 and 38 C.J.S. Guaranty, § 53. A guaranty is deemed unconditional unless its terms import a condition precedent to liability, 15 O.S.1961, Sec. 331; 24 Am.Jur. Guaranty, Sec. 16; and 38 C.J.S. Guaranty, § 7.

The intent of the parties to a guaranty is to be collected from the whole instrument, McNeal v. Gossard, 6 Okl. 363, 50 P. 159. Where the language of a contract of guaranty is clear and explicit, its purpose and meaning must be ascertained therefrom, without resort to extrinsic evidence, Miller v. National printing and Engraving Company, 172 Okl. 447, 45 P.2d 483.

A judgment is a form of indebtedness, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Sommer v. Sommer
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • October 14, 1997
    ...Ex-husband relies upon Lepak v. McClain, 1992 OK 166, 844 P.2d 852; Potter v. Wilson, 1980 OK 51, 609 P.2d 1278; Rucker v. Republic Supply Co., 415 P.2d 951 (Okla.1966); and 12 O.S.1991 §§ 732, 902 to show that contempt proceedings may not proceed upon the unpaid support alimony reduced to ......
  • Colclasure v. Colclasure
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • February 4, 2013
    ...9 of Tulsa County, 1985 OK 110, ¶ 7, 714 P.2d 198 18.Lum v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 1987 OK 112, ¶ 16, 757 P.2d 810;Rucker v. Republic Supply Co., 1966 OK 118, ¶ 9, 415 P.2d 951. 19.Founders Bank & Trust v. Upsher, 1992 OK 35, ¶ 19, 830 P.2d 1355;Mercury Inv. Co. v. F.W. Woolworth Co.,......
  • Colclasure v. Colclasure
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • November 20, 2012
    ...9 of Tulsa County, 1985 OK 110, ¶7, 714 P.2d 198 40. Lum v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 1987 OK 112, ¶16, 757 P.2d 810; Rucker v. Republic Supply Co., 1966 OK 118, ¶9, 415 P.2d 951. 41. Founders Bank & Trust v. Upsher, 1992 OK 35, ¶19, 830 P.2d 1355; Mercury Inv. Co. v. F.W. Woolworth Co.,......
  • Bank of Oklahoma, N.A. v. Red Arrow Marina
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • October 13, 2009
    ...& Trust Co. v. Upsher, supra note 8, at ¶ 11, at 1362; Riverside Nat'l Bank v. Manolakis, supra note 24, at ¶ 13, at 442; Rucker v. Republic Supply Co., 1966 OK 118, ¶ 9, 415 P.2d 951, 954 (per curiam); First Nat'l Bank v. Cleveland, 1927 OK 194, ¶ 0, 260 P. 80 (First Syllabus by the Court)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT