Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

ANNA S. WOLF, appellant, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CO., respondent.

1. Whether or not complainant was an accommodation maker or endorser to the knowledge of the bank in this case, she was primarily liable to the bank by virtue of Comp. Stat. p. 3738 § 29 (now R.S. 7:2-29) in force when she became maker and endorser on all the notes in the series on which her name appeared.

2. If it were necessary to show consideration to support such primary liability, sufficient could be found in any loss or detriment suffered by the bank in forebearing to exercise its absolute right to demand payment from her when it could and, upon her failure to pay, to recover judgment against her. It is not necessary that any benefit should have accrued to complainant.

3. Complainant assigned insurance policies covering the life of her husband and under which she was beneficiary, as well as their proceeds, to the bank unconditionally, as security for all obligations on which her husband was then or might thereafter become liable to the bank. The right thus given the bank to apply the proceeds as it saw fit in discharge of any of her husband's obligations, passed to defendant as its assignee. It should not be limited by complainant's plea that since she was, as between her husband herself, a surety on one of his obligations, the proceeds of the policies should first have been applied in discharge of that particular debt.

4. Complainant having presented the contention that she executed assignments of the policies in question to the bank on an express oral agreement made on behalf of the bank that the proceeds would first be applied to any obligation of her husband to the bank on which she was liable, and the jury having thereafter rendered a verdict against complainant, the question of the existence of such an agreement is res adjudicata and cannot be considered in this action.

PER CURIAM.

The decree under review will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion by Vice-Chancellor Fielder.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, COLIE, DEAR, WELLS, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, THOMPSON, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WOLF v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CO
(Sep 18, 1942)