Srutek v. Hart

Ohio Court of Appeals

Srutek v. Hart

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 374, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1833

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 16, 1923

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 374 (Srutek v. Hart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Srutek v. Hart, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 374, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1833 (Ohio Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Epitomized Opinion

This was an action brought by Hart & Company on an instrument of guaranty. It guaranteed th< payment of all goods purchased by Kvet and die not specify any length of time for its duration Hart & Co. were wholesale milliners, and as Kve was about to enter the millinery business this guar antry was given in order for her to obtain credit Kvet purchased large quantities of goods and wa: a continuous buyer from the inception of the credi in 1911 down to 1920. The guaranty was neve: revoked. Kvet paid all of her bills promptly excep the last, which was for $2200., A judgment wa then obtained against her and suit brought againb Srutek, as guarantor. Judge Cull held that ih guaranty was a continuing guaranty and permittp. recovery. Srutek prosecuted error. In sustainiin the judgment of the lower court, the Court q Appeals held: •

1. The guaranty was a continuing guaranty a no evidence was introduced showing an interruption in the relationship between the parties.

2. A contract will be construed as a continuim guaranty if it appears that a future, course of deal ings for an indefinite time or a succession of credijt is contemplated by the parties. 1

3. Unless the word in which the guaranty is ey pressed fairly imply that the liability of a guarantto is to be limited, it continues until revoked.

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

PER CURIAM.

Epitomized Opinion

This was an action brought by Hart & Company on an instrument of guaranty. It guaranteed th< payment of all goods purchased by Kvet and die not specify any length of time for its duration Hart & Co. were wholesale milliners, and as Kve was about to enter the millinery business this guar antry was given in order for her to obtain credit Kvet purchased large quantities of goods and wa: a continuous buyer from the inception of the credi in 1911 down to 1920. The guaranty was neve: revoked. Kvet paid all of her bills promptly excep the last, which was for $2200., A judgment wa then obtained against her and suit brought againb Srutek, as guarantor. Judge Cull held that ih guaranty was a continuing guaranty and permittp. recovery. Srutek prosecuted error. In sustainiin the judgment of the lower court, the Court q Appeals held: •

1. The guaranty was a continuing guaranty a no evidence was introduced showing an interruption in the relationship between the parties.

2. A contract will be construed as a continuim guaranty if it appears that a future, course of deal ings for an indefinite time or a succession of credijt is contemplated by the parties. 1

3. Unless the word in which the guaranty is ey pressed fairly imply that the liability of a guarantto is to be limited, it continues until revoked.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 374, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/srutek-v-hart-ohioctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack