continuing guarantee

this being a continuing guarantee, in which the parties contemplated a series of transactions, and as soon as the defendants had received notice of the acceptance, they must necessarily have understood, that there would be sucessive advances, acceptances and indorsements, which would be renewed and discharged, from time to time, we cannot perceive any ground of principle or policy, upon which to rest the doctrine, that notice of each successive transaction, as it arose, should be given. All that could be required would be, that when all the transactions between the plaintiff and Haring under the guarantee were closed, notice of the amount for which the guarantors were held responsible, should, within a reasonable time afterwards, be communicated to them.