Tuesday, June 16, 2020
First State Bank of Sinai vs Hyland FACT: In this case both sides of the party have very good statements and facts that either hold them responsible or not hold them responsible. When it comes to the defendant Mervin Hyland, he says that during the whole time the two promissory notes were being conducted he was incapacitated through the use of liquor when he signed the note. When it comes to the plaintiff First state bank of Sinai, they stated that he signed a promissory note and sent a check for $900 to pay for interest on the note. History: This case first stated in 1981 on March 10, when Randy Hyland son of Mervin Hyland went into the bank and sat down with William Buck and executed two promissory notes. One for $6,800 and one for $3,000, both notes became dued on September 19, 1981. Randy extended the note once and was asked to have his father cosign in order for the extension to take place and his father signed. The new note due date was April 20, 1982 and it was still unpaid. On May 5, 1982 Randy came into the bank, and with him he brought a blank check with his fatherÃ¢â¬â¢s signature. Randy then paid $900, which was the interest owed and then requested another extension, Buck agreed but also requested MervinÃ¢â¬â¢s signature for another extension. Then the new due date was scheduled for the July 2, 1982, on June 22, 1982 Randy filed for bankruptcy and then both notes was the responsibility of Mervin Hyland. Issue: The question that still remains is if Mervin Hyland is responsible for paying back the $9,800 to the first state bank of Sinai. Mervin believes that since he has no knowledge of anything that was going on because he was drinking heavily from the late summer to the early winter, that he should be hold responsible for anything that is going on. William Buck and the first state bank of Sinai believe that Mervin Hyland should be hold responsible for the money owed considering that he signed for the extension and the wrote a check to pay for the interest of the notes. Holding: Mervin Hyland was said to lack personal care and nonparticipation in family life and farming business as support for finding the contractual relationship between the parties void at its inception. And it was further held that the first state bank of Sinai had failed to show MervinÃ¢â¬â¢s subsequent ratification of the contract. After that being said the first state bank of Sinai, then appeals the judgment for Mervin Hyland. Reasoning: What was use to come to the conclusion of the decisions for the ruling of the Mervin Hyland, was that he was not in the right state of mind to make such decisions regarding the two notes. By Mervin Hyland being drunk all the time and his son getting his to sign the promissory notes he had no real knowledge of what was going on at the time. Result: The final decision that that Mervin Hyland was responsible for the repayment to the first state bank of Sinai. The evident that made this possible was that Mervin did sign for the notes and that he did pay the interest for the notes.