Shows v. Steiner, Lobman & Frank
Decision Date | 30 November 1911 |
Parties | SHOWS v. STEINER, LOBMAN & FRANK. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 15, 1912.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Crenshaw County; A. E. Gamble, Judge.
Action by Steiner, Lobman & Frank against T. W. Shows. From a judgment for plaintiffs on a directed verdict, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
F. B Bricken and Tyson, Wilson & Martin, for appellant.
Powell & Hamilton, for appellees.
This is an action on a contract of guaranty, which contract was in writing, and was as follows:
The complaint as last amended contained three counts. The first and second declared upon the contract, which was set out in full, and the third on the common counts, which last count need not be considered. Demurrers to the complaint being overruled, the defendant filed a great number of special pleas, including one of non est factum. Demurrers were sustained to most of these pleas, and the trial was had upon pleas 1, 2, 13, 14, A, and C, and two special replications to pleas A and C, which replications it is unnecessary to notice. Assignments of error from 1 to 21, inclusive, go to the sustaining of demurrers to special pleas from 3 to 10, and to pleas B and 15.
The defenses attempted to be set up in the pleas, in varying forms, may be reduced to three, which were: First, that defendant had had no notice of the acceptance of the guaranty by the plaintiffs; second, that the contract, when signed by defendant, contained blanks which were afterwards filled in, such after filling in constituting an alteration of the contract; third, that there was no sufficient consideration to support the contract, in that the defendant did not actually receive the recited consideration of $5, and had no notice of plaintiffs' acceptance of the guaranty, nor of their furnishing the credit, so as to make it a binding contract.
None of these numerous pleas, to which demurrers were sustained, was good. The three defenses attempted to be set up in them were not availing in this action. It is very true that notice of acceptance by the guarantee of a mere proposed guaranty, such as a letter of credit, is necessary to make the undertaking binding upon the guarantor; but it is equally true and well settled that no formal or further acceptance is necessary where the guaranty, as in this case, is a bilateral contract, completely executed by both parties, reciting on its face that it is executed upon a recited, even though nominal, consideration.
These two rules are well settled by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Davis v. Wells, 104 U.S. 159, 26 L.Ed. 686. It is there said: "
But it is further on, in the same opinion, said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crandall Pettee Co. v. Jebeles & Colias Confectionery Co.
... ... Southern Ry. Co. v. McEntire, 169 Ala. 42, 53 So ... 158; Shows v. Steiner et al., 175 Ala. 363, 57 So ... 700; Sou. Bit. Co. v ... ...
-
York Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Credit Corp.
...would not affect the obligation of the individual Yorks.11 Such agreements are enforceable under Alabama law. Shows v. Steiner, Lobman & Frank, 175 Ala. 363, 57 So. 700 (1911). This also answers the argument that Chrysler Credit failed to reserve its rights against the individuals with suff......
-
Davis v. Anderson
...its validity. This court has similarly applied this principle in Bethea v. McCullough, 195 Ala. 480, 70 So. 680, and in Shows v. Steiner, 175 Ala. 363, 370, 57 So. 700, where the consideration was An agreement to mature the debt earlier than its existing maturity date is a sufficient new co......
-
O'Rear v. O'Rear
... ... 670; Bethea v. McCullough, ... 195 Ala. 480, 70 So. 680; Shows v. Steiner, Lobman & ... Frank, 175 Ala. 363, 57 So. 700. The deed here ... ...