Case ID: watts_10/html/0258-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Craddock against Armor.
    The marginal annexation of the words “security for the fulfilment of the above” to the name of a joint promissor in a note, will not change his character of promissor to that of a guarantor.
    ERROR to the common pleas of Allegheny county.
    John B. Hughes for the use of George Armor against Richard Pope and Robert Craddock. This action originated before a justice of the peace. The summons was served upon Craddock alone. Pope not found. It was founded upon the following instrument:—
    “Pittsburgh, Sep. 15, 1838.
    “Due John B. Hughes, or bearer, the sum of forty dollars, to be taken in meat at my stall when called for.”
    Richard Pope.
    “ Security for the R. Craddock.”
    fulfilment of the above.”
    The declaration was on a joint note averring a demand of meat and money. The only material part of the defence was, “ that the plaintiff could not recover without express proof of a proceeding against Pope in the first instance, and of his insolvency, Craddock being but a guarantor.”
    The court below (Patton, president) answered this point in the negative.
    
      Miller, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Knox, for defendant in error.
   Per Curiam.

The assignment of error is disposed of by one circumstance apparent on the face of the bill — Craddock was not a guarantor, but an immediate party. His name was signed at the foot, beneath that of Pope, the principal debtor, but, to exclude misconception of his character in the transaction, with the marginal annexation of the words, “security for the fulfilment of the above,” which are not inconsistent with a direct engagement. They serve to note that he had signed, not as-a guarantor, but as a surety. They are not technical words in a contract of guaranty; and the juxta-position of the signatures, as well as the absence of apt words to indicate a contingent responsibility, shows that the parties intended to be jointly bound.

Judgment affirmed.