¶1The question in this case is identically the same which was decided by this court in Barker v. Scudder, 56 Mo. 276, and was reiterated in Davis Sewing Machine Co. v. Jones, 61 Mo. 409. The suit in this case was upon a guaranty of a note for a sewing machine given by the purchaser, Durham, on the back of which was written “Eor a valuable consideration I hereby guaranty the payment of the within note.” Signed: “Joel Hester.” The defense was that “ no notice at anytime was *92given by plaintiff to defendant, of any demand of payment or refusal to pay, on the part of said Durham, of said note.” There was a motion to strike out this part of defendant’s answer, which was overruled, and judgment was given for defendant on the pleadings. This question was strictly passed on in the case of Barker v. Scudder, and according to that, this judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.
71 Mo. 91
Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Hester
Decided October 15, 1879
Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1879-10-15
<p>Guaranty: notice : promissory note. A guarantor of a promissory note is not entitled to notice before suit of demand upon the maker and refusal by him to pay.</p>
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1907
3 state decisions
Relies on Barker v. Scudder · Davis Sewing Machine Co. v. Jones
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Reversed · Decided 1879-10-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →