Emerson Mfg. Co. v. Rustad
Decision Date | 14 April 1909 |
Citation | 19 N.D. 8,120 N.W. 1094 |
Parties | EMERSON MFG. CO. v. RUSTAD. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Defendant signed and delivered the following written instrument, contained on the back of a contract between plaintiff and one T., whereby T., a local dealer, purchased certain farm implements from plaintiff:
Held, that such instrument constitutes an absolute guaranty, and hence notice to defendant of plaintiff's acceptance thereof was unnecessary in order to bind him.
Standard Sewing Machine Company v. Church et al., 11 N. D. 420, 92 N. W. 805, distinguished.
Appeal from District Court, Cass County; Pollock, Judge.
Action by the Emerson Manufacturing Company against John Rustad and another. Judgment for defendant Rustad, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.Stambaugh & Fowler, for appellant. M. A. Hildreth, for respondent.
In the month of March, 1905, plaintiff, Emerson Manufacturing Company, a manufacturer of farm implements at Rockford, Ill., entered into the usual contract with defendant Tvedt, whereby the latter, who was a local dealer in farm machinery at Kindred, this state, ordered from plaintiff certain machinery at stipulated prices, to be shipped to Kindred, and said defendant was given the exclusive sale during said season of such machinery in the territory tributary to Kindred and other designated points near there. Upon the back of the printed order the respondent, Rustad, signed the following guaranty: Tvedt defaulted in making payments due plaintiff under the contract, and this action was brought against both Tvedt and Rustad to recover the amount of Tvedt's indebtedness to plaintiff. The amount of such indebtedness is not in dispute, and plaintiff had judgment against Tvedt in the court below; but the trial court directed a verdict in favor of Rustad upon the theory that there was no liability against him, because plaintiff never notified him of its acceptance of the Tvedt contract or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
W. T. Rawleigh Medical Company, a Corp. v. Laursen
... ... Gordon, 121 Mass. 330; McConnon & Co ... v. Laursen, 22 N.D. 604, 135 N.W. 213; Emerson Mfg ... Co. v. Tvedt, 19 N.D. 8, 120 N.W. 1094; Swisher v ... Deering, 204 Ill. 203, 68 N.E ... ...
-
New Idea Spreader Co. v. Satterfield
... ... v. Richards, 115 ... U.S. 524, 6 S.Ct. 173, 29 L.Ed. 480; Everson Mfg. Co. v ... Tvedt, 19 N.D. 8, 120 N.W. 1094; Bank of California ... v. Union Packing Co., 60 ... ...
-
Northern National Bank v. Douglas
... ... v ... Gilmore, 142 Ill.App. 569; Lascelles v. Clark, ... 204 Mass. 362, 90 N.E. 875; Emerson Mnfg. Co. v ... Tvedt, 19 N.D. 8, 120 N.W. 1094; Doud v. National ... Park Bank, 54 F. 846, 4 ... ...
-
N. Nat. Bank v. Douglas
...(N. S.) 960;Boyd v. Snyder, 49 Md. 325;Acorn v. Gilmore, 142 Ill. App. 569;Lascelles v. Clark, 204 Mass. 362, 90 N. E. 875;Emerson v. Tvedt, 19 N. D. 8, 120 N. W. 1094;Doud v. Nat. Bank, 54 Fed. 846, 4 C. C. A. 607;Bond v. Farwell, 172 Fed. 58, 96 C. C. A. 546. In the three last mentioned c......