The San Francisco call., 1897-07-27
Close Of the Important
Semi Tropic Liti-
cation.
s. M. Shortridge Presents the
Case of Bonebrake and
Merrill.
Plaintiffs Pierce, Pope & Talbot Said
to Have Neglected Their
Own Interests.

Attorney e. S. Pillsbury opened the ar
gument in the Semi-Tropic Land Com
pany's litigation yesterday morning by
calling Judge Troutl's attention to what
he considered the original and continuing
intention of the contracting parties in the
dis sposition of the debtedness.
Mr.. Pillsbury thought that when Samuel
Merrill, George H. Bonebrake and F. c.
Howes signed the guaranty TO pay $50, 900
if the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Com
pany should fail to do so it was intended
that the persons who advanced the money,
Henry Pierce, Emily F. Pope and W. ii.
Talbot, should not press the guarantors
until the resources of the property under
mortgage had been exhausted. He in
sisted that after the failure of the Semi
Tropic Company to meet its Obligations
the defendants here asked for leniency and
that indulgence was granted by the plain
tiffs IN this action. He said the delay in
bringing the suit was occasioned by The
represen tations of the defendants in this
suit and that, therefore, they cannot be
allowed to take advantage OF their own
acts i'll this regard.
S. NJ. Shortridge, attorney for defend
ants, Bonebrake and Merrill, replied that
the guaranty signed by the defendants
was absolute and simple in its terms;
til at it was unconditional, and that the
instant the Semi-Tropic Company failed
to pay the defendants were bound In law
for the amount of the debt then due, and
were so held by the plaintiffs, who ex-
pressed themselves plainly in that way i'll
their letters to all OF the defendants. The
guaranty was executed on June l, 1889,
the terms OF the instrument being that il
the Semi-Tropic Company should fail to
4, i l.l~@ H. L
tion would be discharged by the guar
antors, who are the defendants here, ac-
cording to the conditions snd terms of the
note and mortgage OF the Seml-IrOple
Company. These words were set forth in
the complaint, but the mortgage was not
pleaded, so that when the defendants de-
murred to the com plaint the court said
there might be somethinC IN the mort
gage that would be construed TO extend
the term OF the guaranty, SO that the
statute Of limitations would not begin at
once 10 run as against the claim OF the
plaintiffs. The demurrer was therefore
overruled and the case was called for trial.
The gentleman on the other side declined
to introduce the mortgage in evidence, so
when he rested his case the record was
the same as IL was when the demurrer was
overruled.
The first thing the defendants did was
to put the IN ortgage IL evidence. On its
face the document showed that it was
plain, unconditional guaranty, and the
guarantees having agreed to pay the
claim according to the terms of the mort
gage, their liability accrued the moment
the debt of the Semi-Tropic Com pany be-
came due. At that in slant also the stat
ute OF limitations began to run. More
than four years having expired before the
beginning OF this suit, Mr.. Shortridge
contended that there was no legal claim
against the defendants.
II do not stop to discuss the question of
the pleading OF the statute of limitations
whether it is an inequitable defense or
not" said Mr.. Shortridge. at has been
termed statute of repose, so that no one
shall be allowed to spring stale claims on
an individual or a corporation after
legal term of time has elapsed, and after
the available property has been, perhaps,
dissipated. so that the party sued has no
recourse. But there are other defenses
here that show how equitable is the posi-
tion taken by the defendants in this
action.
According to their own correspond
ence, by the letters read by them selves
1T Is plain that their own neg ect caused
the loss and that they were warned in
time for them to protect themselves and
the guaran tors from loss if they had exer-
cised proper caution. In that event there
would have been no deficiency judgment
and all this litigation would have been
avoided. If the plaintiffs had sued on the
guaranty at the time they were by law al
lowed to do so and had obtained judg-
ment, they at least would have assigned
10 us the note and mortgage of the Semi
TrOrlc Company so that We could have
looked to that source for REIN burse ment.
But they elected 10 pursue the security OF
the mortgage, and by their own careless
ness having failed to guard and secure