Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0618-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 775
    WATKINS CO. v. HARTZELL et
    No. 19984.
    Supreme Court
    On motion to certify.
    Dock. July 16, 1926;
    4 Abs. 493.
    1140. SURETYSHIP — Where a surety signs a contract thereby guaranteeing payment for merchandise received under said contract, in a suit on account, may said surety introduce parole evidence to qualify said contract?
    Attorneys — Myers & Myers and J. K. Brumbaugh, for Company; Mannix, Crawford & Billingsley, for Hartzell; all of Greenville.
   This action was brought originally in the Darke Common Pleas upon an account between The J. R. Watkins Company and one Wenger wherein was provided terms and conditions of the company.

Two sureties signed the agreement which contained in part the following:

“We, the undersigned sureties, do hereby - - - - jointly, severally, and unconditionally promise and guarantee the full and complete payment of said indebtedness----”.

The judgment of the Common Pleas in favor of the company upon a directed verdict was reversed by the Court of Appeals for certain errors.

The ■ Company in the Supreme Court contends:

1. That the sureties cannot introduce parole evidence to qualify or limit the contract.

2. That dmeurrers to the separate defenses set up by the sureties should have been sustained.