Samuel Train & Co. v. Jones
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit upon the following guaranty, signed by the defendant. “Messrs. Train & Co. . “ If Mr. Agustus Jones shall make a contract for four “ or five hundred dollars worth of hides, I will stand res- “ ponsible for the fulfilment of any contract said Augustus “ Jones, or his agent, shall make.”
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit upon the following guaranty, signed by the defendant. “Messrs. Train & Co. . “ If Mr. Agustus Jones shall make a contract for four “ or five hundred dollars worth of hides, I will stand res- “ ponsible for the fulfilment of any contract said Augustus “ Jones, or his agent, shall make.” The hides were obtained on the credit of the guaranty, of which the defendant was immediately apprized, but no express notice of that fact was proved to have been given by the plaintiffs to the defendant. The county court instructed the jury, that, to entitle the plaintiffs to…
1Opinion of the CourtRedfield, J.
This contract is not a continuing guaranty, for it has reference only to one transaction. Its obligation is future, indeed, and conditional, and, in that respect, it is in *445the nature of an offer. But the condition, upon which the liability attaches, is the act of a third person, which act the defendant was as much bound to take notice of, as the plaintiffs. I find no case at common law where notice of. the acceptance of such a guaranty has been required. No doubt the plaintiff should be required to act in good faith towards the defendant. But we should not extend this principle so far, as to…
2Cited by8 opinions
- American Surety Co. v. WhiteheadTexas Commission of Appeals · 1932
- M. Noyes & Co. v. NicholsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Roberts v. HawkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Woodstock Bank v. DownerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Manley Brothers, Inc. v. BushSupreme Court of Vermont · 1934
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.