The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-04-08
WHO PAYS TT NOW3
Guarantors of Chamber of Comm cree
Not Liable for 1t.

Judge Willis filed his decision yesterday
in the action brought by the st. Paul Trust
company against the st. Paul chamber of
commerce and fifteen guarantors on a prom
issory note given by the chamber of COM
merce in 1890 in the sum of SIS, 900 to the trust
company, the payment of which guaran-
teed by the following defendants:
Frederick DriscolL Thos. Cochran Jr. Hen
ry S. Fairchild, dohn G. Quinby, E. W. Peet
Robert A. Smitha Reuben Warner, Walter S.
Morton, John B. 'Sanborn, Frederick A. Fogg
H. A. Castle, Archelaus Pugh William M
Bushnell, Charles A. Moore and Edward Sim
onton.
Partial payments had been made on the
note from time to time, until the amount
due reduced to $5,S6036
Judge WilEs decided that the guarantors
are not Fable, inasmuch as they never had
any knowledge OF the application of the par
tial payments on the note, nor any knowledge
OF any payment Of said note, nor mad they
ever assented thereto. In substance, the
court finds the following facts:
That on and before Jan. A. 1890 the plant
if, the ST. Paul chamber of commerce. exc
cuted the promissory note for IS, 600 set
forth in the complaint and that, contempor-
aneously with the execution of said note the
answering defendants, together with the de-
PENDANT, Henry A. Castle, and one William
NJ. Bushnell, signed the contract of guaranty
in the words set forth in the complaint and
delivered the said not to the st. Paul CT am
Der of commerce. so guaranteed, and the St.
Paul chamber of commerce thereafter for
value received, delivered the said note SO
Z
has been and still is the owner Of said note.
That there have been paid account of
the principal and interest of said note the
amounts admitted In the complaint to have
been so paid. but all of said payments have
been made by the St. Paul chamber Of com
merce, and that none of said payments have
been made by the other defendants or any
of them.
That on Feb 9, 1892, after said note was
long past due the st. Paul chamber of com
merce paid to the plaintiff the sum of 81 200
[zI+ nad Nv
at said time there owing on said note
the principal thereof and interest from the
18th day of April 1891. That Of said pay
ment made on the 9th day of February 1892
by the plaintiff with the consent of the St.
Paul chamber of commerce, on the principal
of said note. and $64O to pay the interest on
said note to the 18th day Of April 1892, and
thereupon the plaintiff Endorsed on the back
of said note these words and figures, $500
interest to April H. 1892 paid Feb g. 1892 .
That no express agreement was made be-
tween the plaintiff and the said chamber of
commerce at the time of said payment and
application thereof f. that the time of pay
ment Of said naHe should be extended to the
14th day of April 1892, to any other time
nor was any express agreement made be-
tween the plaintiff and the st. Paul chamber
of commerce att the. time Of such payment
and application THAT the time of payment of
said note should not be extended. That none
of the said answering defendants guarantors
except the defendant Sanborn had any
knowledge OF the e appllcaIlcn winch was
made of said payment OF Feb. 9, 1892, until
after the thisJi suit was begun, and that
none of said defendants other than the de-
PENDANT Sanborn in any way assented to
said application.
The court also finds that other payments
on the note we've subsequently, made by the
chamber Of commerce and similarly applied
and Endorsed on the back of the note by the
st. Paul Trust company, without the knowl-
edge or assent Of the answering defendants.
The conclusion of the court finds that none
OF said answering defendants, guarantors, had
ever had any knowledge OF any extension OF
the time of payment of said note, or ever as
sentsd or consented thereto, in any way
ratified any such extension, with the excep-
ton that the defendant Sanborn knew and
assented to the application of the payment
made as hereinbefore found On Feb. 8, 1892
AS conclusions Of law. the court finds that
the plaintiff Is not entitled to any relief as
against the answering defendants or either Of
them and that said defendants are entitled
to judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.