Hilda L. Bowdan v. Gooderham & Worts, Limited

D.C. Circuit

Hilda L. Bowdan v. Gooderham & Worts, Limited

272 F.2d 565, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 336, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3068

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 19, 1959

Docket15157_1

StatusPublished

This text of 272 F.2d 565 (Hilda L. Bowdan v. Gooderham & Worts, Limited) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hilda L. Bowdan v. Gooderham & Worts, Limited, 272 F.2d 565, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 336, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3068 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

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 *566 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 *566 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 F.2d 565, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 336, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilda-l-bowdan-v-gooderham-worts-limited-cadc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack