Defendant company made a note which was indorsed personally by defendant Heiselt, its president. The lower court, in rendering judgment against defendant Heiselt personally, held that the statute of limitations had run in favor of the defendant company but that it had not run in favor of the defendant Heiselt, as his absence from the state during a portion of the period had tolled the statute as to him. On appeal, held, affirmed. Under section 120(3) of the N.I.L. there had been no "discharge of a prior party" which would allow one secondarily liable to escape liability. Upton v. Heiselt Const. Co., (Utah 1949) 208 P. (2d) 945.
James F. Gordy S.Ed.,
BILLS AND NOTES-LIABILITY OF INDORSER AFTER STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS BARRED ACTION AGAINST MARKER,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol48/iss7/12