Bridgeport State Bank v. Union Warehouse & Mill. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1926 |
| Docket Number | 19309. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | BRIDGEPORT STATE BANK et al. v. UNION WAREHOUSE & MILLING CO. et al. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Douglas County; Jeffers, Judge.
Action by the Bridgeport State Bank and another against the Union Warehouse & Milling Company and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
D. E Twitchell, of Seattle, for appellants.
Hanna Miller & Hanna, of Colfax, and Philip D. Macbride, of Seattle, for respondents.
This action was instituted to recover upon a guaranty signed by defendants. A jury trial resulted in a verdict in their favor. Motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial were denied, and plaintiffs appeal.
Appellants sued on a guaranty given to the Bridgeport State Bank to guarantee liabilities of the Union Warehouse & Milling Company to the extent of $25,000. The important part of the guaranty, so far as this appeal is concerned, is contained in the following words:
To the suit to recover the amounts of several notes alleged to be covered by this guaranty, the respondents interposed several affirmative defenses, one of which was that the guaranty sued upon had been superseded by a later contract of guaranty. At the trial, the evidence of respondents was to the effect that, in the latter part of 1916, there was a request for a new guaranty to take the place of the one sued on, which had been executed in 1912. Five witnesses testified that a new guaranty for $100,000 was requested by the bank, and that it was understood that it was to take the place of the $25,000 guaranty. One of respondents testified that when the 1917 guaranty was prepared he took it to the bank and requested the return of the 1912 guaranty, but was told by one of the officials of the bank that it could not be released until the board had acted upon it. Respondents gave several notes to the bank thereafter, all of which contained a notation that they were secured by the $100,000 guaranty of 1917, and in none of them was any reference made to the 1912 guaranty. There was also offered in evidence records of the minutes of the meetings of the directors of the bank, in which it is shown that the cashier called their attention to the 1912 guaranty, and he was instructed that, as soon as a new guaranty was brought in, the rate of interest charged to the milling company might be reduced. The record of one of the meetings, being that of January 9, 1916, reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burton v. Tampa Housing Authority
... ... director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued that PHAs should not be allowed to ... of testimony of Nancy Brown, Chairperson, State of Connecticut Task Force on Public Housing and ... ...
-
American Surety Co. of New York v. Blake
... ... 10, from doing business within state without having agent on ... whom process may be ... surety company's execution of bond for bank as ... state depository, and which provided that ... Gandy (Cal. App.), 248 P ... 999; Bridgeport State Bank v. Union Warehouse & Milling Co., ... ...
-
Weil v. Free State Oil Co. of Md.
...specific undertaking as to the 200,000 gallons was cumulative and not a rejection of the continuing offer. Bridgeport Bank v. Union Warehouse & Milling Co., 137 Wash. 190, 242 P. 13. Cf. Crowe v. Covington Trust & Banking Co., 297 Ky. 737, 181 S.W.2d 245, and Bastow v. Bennett, 3 Campb. 220......
-
First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Dickinson v. Meyer Enterprises, Inc., 870235
...(1977); Chemical Bank v. Wasserman, 37 N.Y.2d 249, 371 N.Y.S.2d 919, 333 N.E.2d 187 (1975). But see Bridgeport State Bank v. Union Warehouse & Milling Co., 137 Wash. 190, 242 P. 13 (1926) (written revocation not necessary where substitution was intended and occurred after direct contact bet......