Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Mfg. Co. v. Draughan

121 N.C. 88 (N.C. 1897)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Mfg. Co. v. Draughan

6 Citing cases

  1. Central Surety Ins. Corp. v. Richardson

    80 P.2d 663 (Okla. 1938)   Cited 7 times

    "The rule is stated by some authorities in this form: a surety may revoke and end its liability, either where the guaranty contract has no definite time to run, or where it has such time, but the principal has so violated it, that the bondsmen may lawfully terminate it on account of the breach." LaRose v. Logansport Nat. Bk., 102 Ind. 332, 1 N.E. 805; Emery v. Baltz, 94 N.Y. 408; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Draughan, 121 N.C. 88, 28 S.E. 136; White Sewing Mach. Co. v. Courtney, 141 Cal. 674, 75 P. 296. After noting the rule in England as contrary, the court says:

  2. Manley Brothers, Inc. v. Bush

    169 A. 782 (Vt. 1934)   Cited 6 times
    In Manley Bros., Inc. v. Bush, 106 Vt. 57, 169 A. 782, 784[8, 9] (1934), the court held that the burden was upon the party seeking to enforce a guaranty to prove that it relied upon the guaranty because the guarantor would not be liable otherwise.

    Letter stating that in consideration that firm will sell certain person merchandise signer of letter would personally guarantee payment of any of his accounts up to a certain maximum is a continuing guaranty. Ricketson v. Lizotte et al., 90 Vt. 386, 390; Aitken v. Lang, 106 Ky. 652; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Draughan, 121 N.C. 88; Jordan v. Dobbins, 122 Mass. 168; 12 R.C.L. 1061, § 11. M.H. Alexander for the defendant.

  3. Oppenheim v. National Surety Co.

    231 P. 1076 (Okla. 1924)   Cited 6 times

    A full and comprehensive discussion of the distinction between a contract of guaranty and a contract of indemnity is found in the case of Anderson v. Spence (Ind.) 37 Am. Rep. 162, which sustains the rule announced herein. The two leading cases, Singer Mfg. Co. v. Draughan (N.C.) 61 Am. St. R. 657, and Aitken Son Co. v. Lang (Ky.) 90 Am. St. R. 263, relied upon by counsel for the defendant, emphasize the correctness of the rule hereinbefore announced and, in fact, are authority for the position that the contract in question is one of indemnity. The Singer Mfg. Company Case holds that the contract there in question was a continuing guaranty.

  4. White Sewing Machine Co. v. Courtney

    141 Cal. 674 (Cal. 1904)   Cited 4 times
    In White Sewing Co. v. Courtney, 141 Cal. 674, 75 P. 296, the effect of statutes identical with ours on these matters was under consideration.

    The bond is a continuing guaranty as to future transactions, and such guaranty may be revoked. (Civ. Code, secs. 2814, 2815; McShame v. Padian, 142 N.Y. 207; Hatch v. Hobbs, 12 Gray, 447; Farmers and Mechanics' Bank v. Kercheval, 2 Mich. 505; Brandt on Suretyship and Guaranty, secs. 157-164; Agawam Bank v. Strever, 18 N.Y. 502; Howe Machine Co. v. Farrington, 82 N.Y. 121; Bostwick v. Van Voorhis, 91 N.Y. 353; La Rose v. Logansport Nat.Bank, 102 Ind. 332; Conduitt v. Ryan, 3 Ind. App. 1; Mathews v. Phelps, 61 Mich. 327;Singer Mfg. Co. v. Draughan, 121 N.C. 88;Weed Sewing Machine Co. v. Winchell, 107 Ind. 260.) The written release, given at the surety's request, extinguished the obligation.

  5. Ballard v. Ballard

    75 N.C. 190 (N.C. 1876)   Cited 8 times
    In Ballard v. Ballard, Wooten, a party to the transaction, was called to prove that he saw the attesting witness sign his name as a witness.

    PER CURIAM Venire de novo. Cited: Thompson v. Humphrey, 83 N.C. 418; Carey v. Carey, 104 N.C. 174; Bright v. Marcom, 121 N.C. 88; Johnson v. Cameron, 136 N.C. 244; Zollicoffer v. Zollicoffer, 168 N.C. 329. Dist.: Loftin v. Loftin, 96 N.C. 99.

  6. National L. Ins. Co. v. Meyer

    153 N.E. 162 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926)   Cited 2 times

    The rule is stated by some authorities in this form: A surety may revoke and end his liability, either where the guaranty contract has no definite time to run, or where it has such time, but the principal has so violated it, that the bondsmen may lawfully terminate it on account of the breach. Cases to this effect are La Rose v. Logansport Nat. Bank, 102 Ind. 332, 1 N.E. 805; Emery v. Baltz, 94 N.Y. 408; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Draughan, 121 N.C. 88, 28 S.E. 136, 61 Am. St. Rep., 657; White Sewing Mach. Co. v. Courtney, 141 Cal. 674, 75 P. 296, and many other cases. Counsel for plaintiff in error cite and rely on two cases: Gordon v. Calvert, 2 Simmons, 252, 57 Eng. Rep. Reprint, 784, and National Life Ins. Co. v. Olhaber, 17 W.L.B., 353, 9 Dec. Rep., 842.