Davis Sewing Machine Co. v. Richards
U.S.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2021Paige v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority D.R.I.
- 2019In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
- 2015Wall Street Management & Capital, Inc. v. Crites Or. Ct. App.
- 1993Rachman Bag Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance E.D.N.Y.
- 1985State Bank of Cologne v. Schrupp Minn. Ct. App.
- 1979Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Ducote La. Ct. App.
- 1973Union National Bank in Minot v. Schimke N.D.
- 1965Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Black Wis.
- 1964Keane v. Gartrell D.C. Cir.
- 1944Kresge Department Stores, Inc. v. Young D.C.
Cites 1 case
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
DAVIS SEWING MACHINE COMPANY v. RICHARDS & Another.
Attorneys
- Mr. James G. Payne for plaintiff in error
- Mr.- W. A. Cook and Mr. C. C. Cole, for defendants in error,
Delivered the opinion of the court. After, stating the facts in the language above reported^ he continued:
The decision, of this case depends , upon the application of the rules of law stated in the opinion in the recent case of Davis v. Wells, 104 U. S. 159, in which the earlier decisions of this court upon the subject are reviewed.
Those rules may be summed up as follows: A contract of guaranty, like every other contract, can only be made by the mutual assent of the parties. If the guaranty is signed by the guarantor at the request of the other party, or if the latter’s agreement to accept is contemporaneous with the guaranty, or if the receipt from him of a valuable consideration, however small, is acknowledged in the guaranty, the mutual assent is proved, and the delivery of the guaranty to him or for his use completes the contract. But if the guaranty is signed by the guarantor, without any previous request of the other party, and in his absence, for no consideration moving between them except future advances to be made to the principal debtor, the guaranty is in. legal effect an offer or proposal on the part of the guarantor, needing an acceptance by the other party to complete the contract.
The case at bar belongs to the latter class. There is no evidence of any request from the plaintiff corporation to the guarantors, or of any consideration moving from it and received or acknowledged by them at the time of their signing the guaranty. The general words at the beginning of the guaranty, “ value received,” without stating from w-hom, are quite as consistent with a consideration received by the guarantors from the principal debtor only. The certificate of the sufficiency of the guarantors; written- by the plaintiff’s attorney under the guaranty, bears date two days later than' the guaranty itself.- The plaintiff’s original contract with the principal debtor was not executed by the plaintiff until after that. The guarantors had no notice that their sufficiency had been approved, or that their guaranty had been accepted, or even that the original contract had been1 executed or assented to by the plaintiff,--until long afterwards, when payment was demanded of them for goods supplied by the plaintiff to the principal, debtor. Judgment affirmed.