194 N.W. 834 | S.D. | 1923
On January 20, 1921, the Kidder Garage, Incorporated, was indebted to plaintiff upon a past-due open account in the sum of $3,449.31, and upon its promissory note $868.75, dated September 22, 1920, and not then past due. On February 20, 1921, the defendants, who. were officers and stockholders of the Kidder Garage, indorsed said .promissory note and indorsed three other promissory notes, aggregating $3,449.31, that day executed by the corporation but dated January 20, 1921, and due respectively on April 15, June 1, and September 15, 1921. The consideration of the indorsement of said four promissory notes was the extension of the time of payment of the past-due indebtedness. The plaintiff refused to accept the notes, for the reason that it insisted upon a guaranty of payment and a waiver of demand and notice of protest. Accordingly the plaintiff canceled and returned to the Kidder corporation the four promissory notes and prepared four new promissory notes of like date and amount as the old ones. These were signed by the corporation, and a guaranty clause and waiver of demand and notice of protest was signed by defendants on the back of said notes in March, 1921, or in the spring of 1921. The evidence on behalf of defendants tended to show that this guaranty and waiver clause was signed by defendants so that plaintiff could hypothecate the notes. This
From a judgmlent entered pursuant to a directed verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying new trial; defendants appeal.
The defense urged was and is the want of consideration moving to the guarantors, and that they guaranteed the last set of notes and waived notice of protest simply as an accommodation to- plaintiff.
“Where a guaranty is ¿ntered into at the same time with the original obligation, or with the acceptance of the latter by the guarantee, and1 forms, with that obligation, a part of the consideration to him, no other consideration need’ exist. In all other cases there must be a consideration distinct from that of the original obligation.”
The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.
Not©. — ‘Reported in 194 N. W. 884. See, 'Headnote (1), American Key-Numibei-ed Digest, Bills and Nlotes, Key-No. 2 2 6, 8 C. J. Sec. 371; (2) Guaranty, Key-No. 16(3), 28 C. J. Sec. 50; (3) Bills and Notes, Key-No. 422(1), 8 C. J. Sec. 982.
On necessity of new consideration to support waiver of failure to give notice of dishonor or subsequent promise 'by indorser, see note in, 29 L. R. A. 305.