The Andes Co-op. Dairy Co. v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Barclays Bank of New York v. Goldman

    517 F. Supp. 403 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that service on maid at officer's residence did not constitute service on the corporation

    The Goldmans' argument, not surprisingly, is more complex, although essentially they claim that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the Bank complied with the terms and conditions of the guarantee agreement. See Andes Co-operative Dairy Co. v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 207 A.D. 102, 201 N YS. 664 (3d Dep't 1923), aff'd mem., 237 N.Y. 622, 143 N.E. 767 (1924). The Goldmans contend that the guarantee agreement and the letters of September 30 and October 2, 1975 should be read together and thus deemed to constitute a single contract.

  2. Bastian Brothers Co. v. Brown

    293 Mich. 242 (Mich. 1940)   Cited 8 times

    When a guaranty of collection requires that notice of the default of the principal debt be given within a certain time, the guaranty is unenforcible if notice is given after the time stipulated. Whiteside v. North American Accident Ins. Co., 200 N.Y. 320 ( 93 N.E. 948, 35 L.R.A. [N. S.] 696); Andes Co-operative Dairy Co. v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 207 App. Div. 102 ( 201 N.Y. Supp. 664, affirmed 237 N.Y. 622 [143 N.E. 767]). As plaintiff made no effort to collect from Food City Brewing Company, and as to note No. 2 did not give notice of default until later than the time stipulated in the guaranty, plaintiff under ordinary circumstances could not recover from the defendant guarantor. The courts make an exception to the general rule when the guarantor has induced the creditor to withhold legal proceedings against the principal debtor.

  3. Clurman v. Bronfman

    245 A.D.2d 201 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.). The court properly concluded that the failure to notify defendant guarantor, for more than a decade, of the obligor's default in payment of the insurance premiums operated to discharge the guarantor of his obligations with respect thereto ( Andes Co-op. Dairy Co. v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co., 207 App. Div. 102, affd 237 N.Y. 622). The notice provision herein is distinguishable from that at issue in Phoenix Acquisition Corp. v. Campcore, Inc. ( 81 N.Y.2d 138) and was properly construed as a condition precedent by the court. In Phoenix, while the guaranty provided that the creditor, there a bank, would notify the guarantor of default in payment of any installment of principal or interest, it also provided that "`[i]f any default shall be made in the payment of the above indebtedness, the [guarantor] hereby agrees to pay the same to the extent above provided without requiring protest or notice of nonpayment to the [guarantor]'" (81 N.Y.2d, supra, at 141).

  4. Barati v. M.S.I. Corp. et al

    212 Pa. Super. 536 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1968)   Cited 4 times

    " Citing Knight Jillson Co. v. Castle, 172 Ind. 97, 87 N.E. 976, 27 L.R.A., N.S., 573; Levy to Use of Walbrook Mill Lumber Co. v. GlensFalls Indemnity Company, 210 Md. 265, 123 A.2d 348; AndesCoop. Dairy Co. v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co., 207 App. Div. 102, 201 N.Y.S. 664, affirmed 237 N.Y. 622, 143 N.E. 767; Restatement, Security, ยง 136 (1941). In summary, the requirement of notice is a sensible and necessary provision, one which has been recognized by legislatures and courts.