The plaintiff brought an action to collect on a $50,000 loan to the corporate defendant and a personal guarantee allegedly signed by the individual defendant.
The defendants argued the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act and that the individual defendant's signature on the guarantee was forged.
The court found the loan was not a demand obligation, meaning the limitation period had not expired.
Although a handwriting expert confirmed the signature on the guarantee was likely forged, the court found the individual defendant had authorized or acquiesced to others signing on his behalf and had a settled intention to guarantee the loan.
Judgment was granted against both defendants.
