TARRIER COMPANY OF DELAWARE,
v.
C. D. LEFFLER, R. M. PRICE, R. H. DANIELS AND GEORGE E. NOLAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision in favor of the defendants in a case involving a guarantee on a promissory note. The court found that the bank's actions in renewing the note and taking collateral released the guarantors.
Yes, the bank's actions in taking collateral for the combined and renewed note, and endorsing it without recourse, released the guarantors.
“The allegations and exhibits of the declaration warrant an inference that in taking the note including the guaranteed note and another not guaranteed, with collateral securities for the payment of the enlarged note,-the bank intended to release the guarantors and to- look to the collaterals as security for payment.”
This quote explains the court's inference that the bank's actions implied a release of the guarantors.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Tarrier Company sued on a written guarantee for a $10,000 note. This note, after renewals and partial payments, was combined with another note int…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Guaranty Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
— This action is upon a written “guarantee to said bank, or its successors or assigns, payment of the notes named herein, or any renewal or renewals of the whole or any part of any of said notes,” one being a note of George E. Nolen, dated August 3, 1926, for $10,000.00, payable 90 days after date. The Nolan note referred to was, after several renewals and a partial páyment ’ of $1,000.00, embraced in a renewal note given by Nolan, at the instance of the defendants, which note included the amount of another note for $14^500.00, given by Nolan, not covered by the guarantee. “ This combined note was renewed several times and payments of $1,000.00 and $1,500.00 were made thereon, and from a sale of collateral $100.00 was applied on the principal, and such note re*461ferred to collateral securities for the payment of the note and did not refer to the guaranty.
The note last referred to was, after its maturity, indorsed to the plaintiff by the receiver of the bank “without recourse on the undersigned City National Bank in Miami by H. J. Spurway (seal) As Receiver.” The allegations and exhibits of the declaration warrant an inference that in taking the note including the guaranteed note and another not guaranteed, with collateral securities for the payment of the enlarged note,-the bank intended to release the guarantors and to- look to the collaterals as security for payment. This being so, the taker after maturity has no better rights in the premises than the payee bank.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.