HILDA L. BOWDAN, APPELLANT,
v.
GOODERHAM & WORTS, LIMITED, APPELLEE
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 court held that an oral condition not included in written guaranties is ineffective against the creditor, and notice of acceptance was waived.
A guarantor signed instruments to secure her husband's retail credit. The husband's account became delinquent, and the creditor sued the guarantor. Th…
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 Suit On Guaranty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Hilda L. Bowdan executed two instruments of guaranty to Gooderham & Worts, Ltd., a Detroit wholesaler, to obtain credit for her husband, a retailer in the District of Columbia, whereupon the wholesaler extended credit to Bow-dan. Some time later his account became so delinquent that Gooderham & Worts sued Mrs. Bowdan for the balance due. When the suit was filed, she and her husband were living separate and apart.
As a defense, the appellant asserted that, when she signed as guarantor at her husband’s request, she told him she intended to be bound only so long as they continued to live together. The alleged condition was not included in the writings and was not communicated to Gooderham & Worts. She also said the guaranties, which contained waivers of notice of acceptance, never became effective because she was not notified they had been accepted. Notice of acceptance was obviated by the waiver provisions. In any event, since the requests for the guaranties originated with the creditor and were directed specifically to appellant, no notice of acceptance was required. Davis v. Wells Fargo & Co., 1881, 104 U.S. 159, 166-167, 26 L.Ed. 686.
Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed and that of Gooderham & Worts was granted. Mrs. Bowdan appeals. As we perceive no prejudicial error, the judgment of the District Court will be upheld.
Affirmed.