Logan v. Clark, 3338.
Decision Date | 04 April 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 3338.,3338. |
Citation | 63 F.2d 973 |
Parties | LOGAN v. CLARK. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
John M. Robinson, of Charlotte, N. C. (Hunter M. Jones, of Charlotte, N. C., on the brief), for appellant.
Joe W. Ervin, of Charlotte, N. C. (Walter Clark, of Charlotte, N. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.
This is an action at law brought, in October, 1931, by appellant J. M. Logan, receiver of the First National Bank of Charlotte, N. C., against appellee, Thorne Clark, in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina, to recover upon a written instrument guaranteeing the payment of certain indebtedness of Aileen Mills, Inc., to the First National Bank of Charlotte. The court, over the plaintiff's objection, submitted to the jury, and the jury answered against the plaintiff, and issue as to the release and discharge of the defendant from the guaranty agreement. From the judgment entered on the verdict this appeal was brought.
Prior to February 9, 1928, Aileen Mills, Inc., was indebted to the First National Bank of Charlotte, N. C., on certain notes given for money loaned said company by said bank. These notes were indorsed by various individuals, and on said February 9, 1928, the following writing, signed by the defendant Clark and four others, was executed:
The following pencil memorandum appears at the bottom of the foregoing writing:
In January, 1930, Aileen Mills, Inc., was placed in the hands of a receiver, and on March 6, 1930, a new contract, guaranteeing payment of the indebtedness due the said bank from the said mills, was executed and signed by three of the original guarantors in the writing of February 9, 1928. This new contract reads as follows:
On the bottom of the foregoing writing appeared the following pencil memorandum: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rabon v. Putnam
...144 S.W.2d 296; Robertson v. Southwestern Co., 136 Ark. 417, 206 S.W. 755; Atlas Assur. Co. v. Lawrence, 8 Cir., 34 F.2d 401; Logan v. Clark, 4 Cir., 63 F.2d 973; Stearns Law of Suretyship, 4th Ed., pp. 98 and 99, Section Appellants point to a contract between the maker and appellees, as pa......
-
Aerospace Electronics, Inc. v. Control Parts Corp.
...the previously submitted guaranty. See Burt v. Community National Bank of Bal Harbour, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 118, 120; Logan v. Clark, 4 Cir.1933, 63 F.2d 973, 975; Crowe v. Covington Trust & Banking Co., 297 Ky. 737, 181 S.W.2d 245; 38 C.J.S. Guaranty § 68. Cf. Bryant v. Food Mach. & Che......
-
St. Petersburg Bank & Trust Company v. Boutin
...to the modification. Restatement of Security § 128; Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Gould, 258 F.2d 883 (10th Cir. 1958); Logan v. Clark, 63 F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1933). This is simply a more specific application of the general principle that, since a suretyship obligation is imposed only with t......
-
United States v. Houff, 8725.
...was made without their knowledge or consent, and that, under established law, they were released from their guaranty, Logan v. Clark, 63 F.2d 973 (4 Cir. 1933). Stated otherwise, appellants contend that the Bank was limited to requiring payment of 75% of the current market value of the coll......