The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1859-05-11
VOLUME XXI. NO. 81.


ing to the amount specified but NAV well be be taken
20 mean, agree 10 tnde1rife am tciinq to under
icfte And this appears 90 be the most natural con-
strucuon Of the instrument under the circumstances.
lie applied So to execute a guaranty for all drafts
druCg 10y Chambers and Standley-hc declines to
give the guaranty except the amount Of 5000 and
saws he .Will underwrta" for that amount For that
amount Of what9 Certainly Of the ,!TdftS drUCH 10y
Chambers and Standey This is evident when We
take the guaranty sued on. IN connection with the
one which he WAS required to execute, and the cir
cumstances attending the transaction.
in is import the te intention must be SsceTtained
by reference to facts and circumstances accompany
ing the execution Of the instrument; andthis may
e dohe without violation ~ any rule OF law in rela-
ton TO adding contradicung written instruments.
Drulnmond Vs. Freshman. II Wheat SIS; Bill vs.. Bru-
en-, How tC. - l69, ls6; Lee Dick and al, 10
Peters 4s 49, Ii certainly proper TO consider
the letter Of guaranty which the party was required
in that which he executed instead oft And by that
evidence alone, the construction that the guaranty
sued on had reference 10 subssting liabilities, is jus
uhed But if we refeAo the facts stated by the wit
ness Chambers which were submitted 70 be weighed
by the Jury, all room for doubt upon the point is
fore, be maintained. ''.s.-
1t is. however, insisted that the facts Of the case
n ssaaE tliat the RuaTaElty was pF8speefive.
Frslt is urged that the fae4 that The pIafuti did
not oect 20 the guaranty when they received ii as
bers and Standley. amounting to about al col s ire
concabe with its being executed security for the
past indebtedness But this conclusion would not be
| the only one TO which these facts might lead II
would appear according 10 the state of the case re-
he'd on by the plaintiffs that they had given credit to
Chanbers and Standley. the faith OF parol prom
Use by the defendant to guaranty the arnount-that
! promise was not obligatory him until reduced to
wrItng-and when afterwards called upon 10 give his
written obligation for the amount he refused 10 do
SO, except for specified amount Under such cir
cumstances would have been the height of folly in
the plaintiffs to decline accept his guaranty for the
! amount specified. for 1t all the security they
could get from him. This appears to be a sufficient
reason for the acceptance Of the guaranty. for an
! amount somewhat less than the Indebtedness for
which they claim that it should have been given.
/ Agan-ltis said 70 be strange and extraordinary
uiht the defendant did not give the letter Of credit
! when Chambers went to New Orleans If he intended
TO guaranty the payment Of the debts contracted by
hun on that occasion. There certainly force in this
view: and 1t would appear be so unreasonable if he
intended 20 guaranty the debt then contracted that
he should authorize Chambers to state that he wond
guaranty the amount, instead OF giving letter Of
credit; and the difficulty is not entirely removed hy
the explanation that the house from which the credit
would be obtained not known for he might have
given general letter Of credit TO any house from
winch the credit might be obtained. well as a gem
! eral verbal promise 10 give a guaranty.
But tins was mere question Of fact be determin-
ed by the Jury from the probabilities Of the matter
| aud from the positive evidence before them. How
ever unusual the transaction enight appear to be- il
they gave credit 10 the testimony OF the witness
! Chambers they could not have avoided coming TO
the conclusion that Chambers was authorized by the
defendant to obtain the credit upon the faith that
| me defendant would guaranty the amount 20 tho
house from which it should be 6btained II the ba
heve the witness that fact was sufficiently establish
cn: ana u appears that upon the question Of his ere
dhilty being fully submitted TO them, they found
| Ana 1t IS beyond the province Of this court, under
such circumstances, 70 say that the jury did wrong
! IN arung upon ms testimony true.
| Another circumstance relied on to show that the
| guaranty was not understood to extend 20 the in
debtedness here sued for, is the letter of the plain
TINS Of the 10th September, 1855, addressed to Cham
| bers STANDBY. That letter states. that when the
| credit was obtained. Chambers pledged his honor
that should be met with shipments Of cotton And
hence u sargued that the credit given upon the
| pledge and responsibility Of Chambers 4 Standev
and not upon the promised guaranty Of the defend
ant But the letter continues say that the credit
| was obtained upon the pledge that the defendant
| would guaranty the amount Both of the pledges are
distinctly stated, inducements TO the credit and il
does not impair the force Of the latter that the re-
cPents Of the credit pledged their honor that they
would discharge the debts by shipments Of cotton
lhey were the parties primarily bound 10 paw il: and
It was both the right and the duty Of the plaintiffs TO
require them to do before resortng to the COLA
| teral obligation arising upon the guaranty.
Upon the whole, il is manifest that the sufcien-
cy OF the evidence to sustain the verdict depends
| upon the credit to be given to the testimony
| Of Chambers. 1t was the province Of the Jury To
decide that question. and 1t fully submitted to
them by the instructions and the verdict in favor
Of hls credlbry. That question being settled, there
can be doubt but his testimony fully establish
ed the liability Of the defendant and justified the yer
| dict
| Several other errors have been assigned but they
do not appear to be relied upon in argument as
| grounds Of reversal Let the Judgment be affirmed.
| HANDY.