John Deere Co. v. Haralson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a guarantor’s signature is sufficient to identify him as such for the purpose of the Statute of Frauds, and that he need not be identified separately in the document as the “guarantor”
• identifying the debt as “past and/or future extension of credit” to the principal debtor
• To be binding, a guaranty must identify the debt, that is, the amount promised to be paid and the time the debt becomes due, as well as the principal debtor, the guarantor, and the creditor.
• A guaranty was enforceable against the guarantor where the document identified the guarantor as the “undersigned,” and the guarantor’s name appeared on the document in the form of his signature, over which was the designation “Guarantor(s).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).