Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

45 Barb. 100

Stockbridge v. Schoonmaker

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 6, 1865

New York Supreme Court · decided 1865-11-06

The complaint alleged, that on or about the 24th day of February, 1862, at the city of New York, in consideration that the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, would sell to one Valentine Arrent, on a credit of three months, such goods as the said Valentine Arrent should desire to buy of the plaintiff, consisting of various kinds of liquors, the defendant promised to be answerable to the plaintiff for the payment by the said Valentine Arrent, for the price of the…

Decided 1865-11-06

By the Court, Geo Gr. Barnard, J.

¶1The defendant’s letter is not in itself a guaranty to the plaintiff for the price of the goods sold by him to Valentine Arrent. The defendant’s-undertaking is that, if required, he will indorse for Arrent to an amount not exceeding one' hundred dollars. The plaintiff has never required of the defendant this indorsement; and without this no action can be maintained against this defendant, by him. (McIvor v. Richardson, 1 M. & Selw. 55. Stafford v. Low, 16 John. 67.) The guaranty was conditional. It was to be created if required, and then by indorsement only. The defendant’s protection may have depended upon the form of the security he undertook for Arrent. He could not be made liable in any other form, until after a refusal by him to indorse Arrent’s note.

¶2Judgment affirmed, with costs.

¶3Ingraham, Leonard and Geo, G. Barnard, Justices.]

/45/barb/100 · .json · Public domain