FRANK J. MCCORMACK AND SHIRLEY R. MCCORMACK, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES P. WOODBURY, 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 affirmed the trial court's judgment that an alleged oral agreement to purchase pledged corporate stock was unenforceable under the statute of frauds, leaving the accommodation endorser entitled to recover on the promissory note.
An alleged oral agreement by which an accommodation endorser committed to purchase pledged corporate stock at a price sufficient to cover a loan is unenforceable under the statute of frauds and does not relieve the endorser's liability on the promissory note.
[1] An oral agreement by an accommodation endorser to purchase pledged collateral at a price covering the loan is unenforceable under the statute of frauds and does not disch…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants gave a promissory note to a commercial bank and pledged corporate stock as collateral; appellee served as an accommodation endorser on the …
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 Accommodation Endorser cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants seek review of a final judgment rendered by the court sitting as the trier of both the facts and the law. The judgment represents the sum of money to which appellee was found to be entitled as an accommodation endorser on a promissory note given by appellants to a commer- ■ cial bank which appellee was required to pay.
The central issue of this appeal concerns an alleged agreement between the parties hereto by which appellee committed himself to purchase the shares of corporate stock pledged by appellants to the bank as collateral for their loan at a purchase price sufficient to cover the amount of the loan. Implicit in the judgment appealed is the finding by the trial court that either no such agreement was ever reached by the parties or that, if so, it was verbal and not evidenced by any note or memorandum in writing and therefore was void and unenforceable under the statute of frauds which was in effect at that time.1
Our review of the record reveals sufficient competent evidence to sustain either theory which may have been adopted by the trial court as a basis for the judgment here assaulted.2 The judgment appealed is affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K, A. C. J, and WIGGINTON, and RAWLS, JJ, concur.