A MATTER OF GUARANTEE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 25, 30 January 1908, Page 8

A MATTER OF GUARANTEE.

?- Dr. M'Arthur, in the Magistrate's Court this morning, delivered judgment in the case of Robert Hanrtah v. D. Andrews. In this case plaintiff sued defendant for £132 15s 8d for goods delivered to the late J. F. Andrews, of Otaki, and for which defendant was allaged to have guaranteed payment. The guarantee was as follows: — "Mr. Hannah — Sir,-r-l hereby stand answerable for my brother for what he wants in the shape of boots and shoes, (signed) D Andrews." Plaintiff claimed that this guarantee -was a continuing one. His Worship, however, after quoting several cases and examining the evidence adduced in the present case, held that the guarantee was not a continuing one, but was for a specific advance. Even assuming that the guarantee was a continuing one, his WorsKip considered that plaintiff could not succeed. On the death of J. F. Andrews in 1905 plaintiff closed the account in his ledger so far as the name J. F. Andrews was concerned and opened a new account in the name of Mrs. J. F. Andrews, the widow, and debited her with the amount due by her late husband. The defendant was released from his guarantea by the death of J. F. Andrews. Plaintiff claimed to have aggregated the moneys paid by Mrs. J. F. Andrews to goods received after her husband's death. It appeared to his Worship that the rule that where neither debtor nor creditor has made any appropriation the laKy will appropriate the payment to the earlier debt was applicable in the present case. Further, in 1903 plaintiff turned his business into a limited liability company, and under section 21 of the Partnerships Act, 1891, a continuing guarantee was revoked as to future transactions by any change in the constitution of the firm to which the guarantee was given. Judgment was therefore for defendant, with costs £6 12. Mr. Blair appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Dunn lor defendant.