Culbertson v. Wilcox

Citations

• 11 Wash. 522
• 39 P. 954
• 1895 Wash. LEXIS 337

Syllabus

<p>NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS — EXTENSION OF PAYMENT — DISCHARGE OF SURETIES — EVIDENCE.</p> <p>The fact that one who signed a note as maker was in reality a surety, would not entitle him to discharge from liability by an extension of the time of payment, unless the holder of the note had actual notice of the suretyship at the time of extending payment.</p> <p>Parol evidence is admissible for the purpose of showing that one who appears upon the face of a note as a maker is in fact a surety, and also for the purpose of showing knowledge of the holder that such signer was merely a surety.</p> <p>In an action upon a promissory note executed by three persons apparently as makers, but of whom two were sureties for the other, notice to the holder of such suretyship is not established by the introduction in evidence of letters from him to the principal, in answer to letters from the latter asking for further time, in which the note was designated as ‘ your note, ” and by proof that one of the sureties, subsequent to a payment on the note and an agreement for its extension, had told the holder’s agent that he was only a surety.</p>