The Bank of Horton v. Brooks, 11,984. [*]

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the CourtCUNNINGHAM, J.:
Citation64 Kan. 285,67 P. 860
PartiesTHE BANK OF HORTON v. C. M. BROOKS AND CALE BROOKS, Partners as C. M. Brooks & Bro., AND JOSEPH BARBER
Docket Number11,984. [*]
Decision Date08 February 1902

67 P. 860

64 Kan. 285

THE BANK OF HORTON
v.

C. M. BROOKS AND CALE BROOKS, Partners as C. M. Brooks & Bro., AND JOSEPH BARBER

No. 11,984. [*]

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 8, 1902


Decided January, 1902.

Error from court of appeals, northern department; JOHN H. MAHAN, ABIJAH WELLS, and SAM'L W. MCELROY, judges.

Judgments of court of appeals and of district court affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

SURETIES--Promissory Note--Extension of Time of Payment--Release of Surety. Where a holder of a note on which there is a surety agrees with the maker thereof to extend the time of payment, if he, the maker, will enter into a contract with a stranger, the said holder to be the beneficiary of such contract, the fact that by such contract such maker is liable to be made to respond in damages for its breach to the third person--even though the performance of such agreement cannot be specifically enforced--constitutes a sufficient consideration moving from the maker of such note to the holder to support the agreement to extend, and thereby excuse the surety from payment.

M. A. Low, W. F. Evans, and James A. Clark, for plaintiff in error.

W. F. Guthrie, for defendants in error.

CUNNINGHAM, J. JOHNSTON, GREENE, ELLIS, JJ., concurring.

OPINION

CUNNINGHAM, J.:

The Bank of Horton held the note of the Brooks brothers for $ 614.11, on which the defendant Barber was an indorser. After it became due and before the days of grace had expired, and without the knowledge or consent of Barber, the cashier of the bank, Hovey, went with one Leverton to the home of Brooks, where Leverton proposed to purchase 4000 bushels of corn from him. Brooks informed [64 Kan. 286] them that he would sell the corn, but that the proceeds of such sale would have to go to pay the Barber note, and Hovey told him that if he would sell the corn to Leverton the bank would extend the note for thirty days, within which time the corn was to be delivered and the proceeds paid upon the note. Thereupon Brooks agreed to sell the corn to Leverton, and, as expressing the contract, a written agreement was drawn up, which is as follows:

"BILL OF SALE.

"Know all men by these presents, that I have this day sold, and by these presents do hereby sell, assign, transfer and set over unto Geo. W. Leverton, his administrators or assigns, 4000 bushels of No. 2 yellow corn, now located on quarter section No. , township No. of range No. , Brown county, Kansas, to be delivered at Germantown, Kan., in crib or on cars, at the option of said Geo. W. Leverton, the purchase-price to be determined by deducting five cents per bushel from the closing quotation on the Kansas City Stock Exchange for a like grade of corn, upon any day between the date of delivery and the 1st day of January, 1897.

"I further agree to file with Geo. W. Leverton, at his office in Horton, Kan., a written acceptance of the day which I may choose to name the price as above stipulated, not later than ten o'clock of the day so selected. I further certify that I have full power to sell and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • First Nat. Bank of Anthony v. Dunning, No. 68362
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • July 2, 1993
    ...is discharged when the time to pay a Page 496 debt is extended. Fisher v. Spillman, 85 Kan. 552, 554, 118 P. 65 (1911); Bank v. Brooks, 64 Kan. 285, Syl., 67 P. 860 (1902); Stove Works v. Caswell, 48 Kan. 689, Syl., 29 P. 1072 (1892). Both sides point out that the specific question involved......
  • Dickson v. Kilgore State Bank, (No. 494-3894.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • January 30, 1924
    ...of the note, was a sufficient consideration for the bank's agreement to extend, and this conclusion was affirmed by the Supreme Court, 64 Kan. 285, 67 Pac. 860, that court "By the contract Brooks [the principal debtor] undertook to do something; by the acceptance of this contract Leverton [......
2 cases
  • First Nat. Bank of Anthony v. Dunning, No. 68362
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • July 2, 1993
    ...is discharged when the time to pay a Page 496 debt is extended. Fisher v. Spillman, 85 Kan. 552, 554, 118 P. 65 (1911); Bank v. Brooks, 64 Kan. 285, Syl., 67 P. 860 (1902); Stove Works v. Caswell, 48 Kan. 689, Syl., 29 P. 1072 (1892). Both sides point out that the specific question involved......
  • Dickson v. Kilgore State Bank, (No. 494-3894.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • January 30, 1924
    ...of the note, was a sufficient consideration for the bank's agreement to extend, and this conclusion was affirmed by the Supreme Court, 64 Kan. 285, 67 Pac. 860, that court "By the contract Brooks [the principal debtor] undertook to do something; by the acceptance of this contract Leverton [......

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