NOT A CO-SURETYSHIP

Taranaki Daily News, 23 November 1932, Page 5

NOT A CO-SURETYSHIP

GUARANTEES FOR DAIRY COMPANY APPEAL FROM LOWER COURT FAILS The question ■ whether there had been a co-suretyship in respect to a guarantee was the main point argued on an appeal which was dismissed by Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. The appeal was lodged by W. R. Perry, Mangatoki, against the judgment of the magistrate at Eltham in favour of C. W. Carlson, Mangatoki. The statement of claim set out that about July 28, 1930, Perry entered a guarantee to secure the account of Margaret E. McKay to the Mangatoki Dairy Company for £5OO. Later it was found ; that accommodation to the . extent of ■ £5OO would not be sufficient to satisfy the needs of Mrs. McKay, and further i accommodation was arranged for £2OO, I provided by two promissory notes, each I for £lOO, one from Perry and one from : Carlson. i Perry was subsequently sued by the Mangatoki Dairy Company for a defiei- • ency of £162 and judgment was given i by the magistrate in favour of the com- ■ pany. Perry then sued the respondent t Carlson in the Lower Court for a con- > tribution towards this £162, but the > magistrate found that the parties were s not liable to a common demand and that ■ there was no right of contribution bel tween them. ! It was against this decision that the ' appeal was brought yesterday by Perry, i On his behalf Mr. A. Chrystal advanced 3 the grounds that Perry and Carlson were t were co-sureties in the matter and that the deficit arose out of the further guar- ( antee of £2OO. It was argued that by virtue of the fact that the Mangatoki t Dairy Company could have pursued Carl- - son on his promissory note a common s demand and co-suretyship existed. t Mr. J. L. Weir submitted for Carlson J that the fact that Perry had admitted 3 there were two guarantees and that he t had been sued upon the first deed of • guarantee, to which Carlson was not a f party, showed that there was no co- - surety. 1 His Honour upheld this view. In dis- • missing the appeal, with £7 7s. costs, he > said that in his opinion there had not ) been a co-suretyship and therefore that • a contribution could not be claimed; I that there had been two distinct trans- - actions and that, therefore, there could - be no common demand. 1