Hungerford v. O'Brien

Decision Date27 July 1887
Citation34 N.W. 161,37 Minn. 306
PartiesCassie Hungerford v. James K. O'Brien, impleaded, etc
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

The plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Otter Tail county upon a promissory note made by the defendant Charles J. Sawbridge, the payment of which was guarantied by the defendant O'Brien. The action was tried before Baxter, J., and a jury, and a verdict directed for plaintiff. Defendant O'Brien appeals from an order refusing a new trial.

Order affirmed.

Rawson & Houpt, for appellant, cited Nelson v. Munch, 28 Minn. 314; Hammel v. Beardsley, 31 Minn. 314; Newcomb v. Raynor, 21 Wend. 108, (34 Am. Dec. 219;) Lynch v. Reynolds, 16 John. 41; Claridge v Dalton, 4 M. & S. 226, 232; English v. Darley, 2 Bos. & P. 61; Smith v. Knox, 3 Esp. 46; Bank of U. S. v. Hatch, 6 Pet. 250; White v Hopkins, 3 W. & S. 99, (37 Am. Dec. 541;) Newton Wagon Co. v. Diers, 10 Neb. 284, (4 N.W. 995;) Oxford Bank v. Haynes, 8 Pick. 423, (19 Am. Dec 334;) Talbot v. Gay, 18 Pick. 534; Wheaton v Wheeler, 27 Minn. 464; Allis v. Ware, 28 Minn. 166; Campion v. Whitney, 30 Minn. 177; Rhett v. Poe, 2 How. 457; Reynolds v. Douglass, 12 Pet. 497; Davis v. Wells, 104 U.S. 159; Second Nat. Bk. v. Gaylord, 34 Iowa 246; Rodabaugh v. Pitkin, 46 Iowa 544; 1 Daniel, Neg. Inst. 295, 296; Thomson on Bills, 393; Story, Promissory Notes, §§ 420, 423, 434; Story, Bills, § 429; Ed. wards on Bills, 570.

E. E. Corliss, for respondent.

Dickinson, J., Mitchell, J., dissenting.

OPINION

Dickinson, J. [1]

The defendant Sawbridge made his negotiable promissory note, which was indorsed to one Gage, who indorsed it in blank to the defendant O'Brien, and he, before maturity, transferred it for value to the plaintiff, indorsing upon the note and signing this guaranty: "For value, I hereby guaranty the payment of the within note to Cassie Hungerford or bearer." The note was not paid. Nothing was done by the plaintiff at the maturity of the note to fix the liability of the indorser Gage. The defendant O'Brien had no notice of the non-payment of the note until more than a year after its maturity. Upon the trial of the issue raised by the answer of the defendant O'Brien, evidence was presented tending to show that the maker of the note was solvent at the time of its maturity, but has since become insolvent; and that the indorser, Gage, was also solvent. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff.

The nature of the obligation of the guarantor is affected by the character of the principal contract to which the guaranty relates. The note expressed the absolute obligation of the maker to pay the sum named at the specified date of maturity or before. The guaranty of "the payment of the within note" imported an undertaking, without condition, that, in the event of the note not being paid according to its terms, -- that is, at maturity, -- the guarantor should be responsible. The non-payment of the note at maturity made absolute the liability of the guarantor, and an action might at once have been maintained against him without notice or demand. Such was the effect of the unqualified guaranty of the payment of an obligation which was in itself absolute and perfect and certain as respects the sum to be paid, and the time when payment should be made, -- all of which was known to the guarantor, and appears upon the face of the contract. The liability of the guarantor thus becoming absolute by the non-payment of the note, the neglect of the holder to pursue such remedies as he might have against the maker (the guarantor not having required him to act) would not discharge the already fixed and absolute obligation of the guarantor, nor would neglect to notify the guarantor of the non-payment have such effect. Brown v. Curtiss, 2 N.Y. 225; Allen v. Rightmere, 20 John. 365, (11 Am. Dec. 288;) Newcomb v. Hale, 90 N.Y. 326; Read v. Cutts, 7 Greenl. 186, (22 Am. Dec. 184; Breed v. Hillhouse, 7 Conn. 523; Campbell v. Baker, 46 Pa. 243; Roberts v. Riddle, 79 Pa. 468; Bank v. Sinclair, 60 N.H. 100; Heaton v. Hulbert, 3 Scam. 489; Dickerson v. Derrickson, 39 Ill. 574; Penny v. Crane Mfg. Co., 80 Ill. 244; Clay v. Edgerton, 19 Ohio St. 549; Wright v. Dyer, 48 Mo. 525. See, also, Vinal v. Richardson, 13 Allen 521, modifying former decisions of the same court.

It follows that the fact that the maker had become insolvent since maturity, or that a mortgage security had become impaired by depreciation in the value of the property, was no defence; nor was it a defence that the guarantor was not notified of the non-payment of the note. We are aware that the position here taken is opposed by some decisions. No valid agreement was shown between the maker and the plaintiff extending the time of payment. From the position above taken, it logically follows that the neglect of the guarantee to take the steps necessary to fix the liability of the indorser, Gage, did not discharge the guarantor. The latter, by his unqualified guaranty of the payment of the note, took it upon himself to see that the note was paid, and was therefore not entitled to notice of its non-payment. (Authorities above cited.) For the same reason, the plaintiff did not owe to the guarantor the duty of taking the steps necessary to fix the contingent liability of the indorser by demand and notice of dishonor. Philbrooks v. McEwen, 29 Ind. 347; Lang v. Brevard, 22 S.C. Eq. 59, 3 Strob. Eq. 59; Pickens v. Finney, 12 Smedes & M. 468; 2 Lead. Cas. Eq., notes to Rees v. Berrington. No such obligation is involved in this contract of guaranty. Even in the case of an ordinary indorsement, the holder, at maturity, is under no obligation to his indorser to give notice of dishonor to prior indorsers or parties. The last indorser becomes liable when he alone is notified, and he in turn may fix the liability of prior parties by giving notice to them.

Order affirmed.

DISSENT BY: Mitchell

Mitchell, J., (dissenting.)

I am unable to concur in the proposition that the plaintiff owed no duty to O'Brien to take steps, at the maturity of the note, to fix the liability of Gage, the indorser. It does not seem to me that the fact that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT