The San Francisco call., 1897-07-22
THE SEMI-qR0PIC
LAND COMPA ANY
Large Interests Involved in
a Lawsuit From the
South.
Interesting Case That Attracts
the Attention of Business
Men.
Question Of the Liability of Guarantors
When the Creditors Do Not Press
Claims on a Mortgage.

Judge Iroutt was engaged yeste rday In
hearing the interesting case of Henry
Pierce, Emily F. Pope and w. II. Talbot
against George NJ. Bonebrake. F. c.
Howes and Samuel Merrill, wherein the
sum OF $19,024 85, with interest at per
cent year, from Novem ber 2, 1895, is at
stake.
Attorney E. S. Pilsbury, representing
the plaintiffs, offered the complaint, in
which it is alleged that the defendants
being interested in the Semi-Tropic Land
and Water Company and wishing to bor-
row money for the benefit OF that COM
pany had guaranteed the payment of
$4,000 borrowed from the plaintiffs for the
use OF the Semi-Tropic Com pany, the
principal place OF business being at Rial
to, San Bernardino County.
Considerable money was paid on the
note and mortgage, leaving the balance
for which suit was instituted.
S. M. Shortridge, on behalf of defendants
Bonebrhke and Howes. set up in answer
that on June 10, 1899, the Semi-Tropic
Company was indebted to the plaintiffs to
the amount of $500, 600. and plaintiffs were
desirous on that date that the loan should
be paid or materially reduced, and in
order to reduce the amount negotiated
for an advance of $250,0O0 from the San
Francisco Savings Union; that the $50. 900
note and mortgage mentioned in The COM
plant was given 10 renew the balance due
on the company's debt to the plaintiffs,
and was delivered as additional security
to plaintiffs by the defendants.
For the defense it was urged that the
guaranty was absolute and unconditional.
ana that if the plaintiffs did not get their
money from the Semi Tropic Company it
was their OWL fault, since that com pany
had p.enty of property from which the
amount could have been realized, and
furthermore that the company is still sol
vent and able TO meet the demands of the
plaintiffs in this case.
Henry Pierce, one of the plaintiffs was
introduced as a witness. Mr. Pierce said
that the accounts of his office show the
amount sued Tor to be due, and he be-
lieved that claim to be just and true.
MAT the conclusion OF Mr.. Plerce's testi-
mony Mr.. Shortridge moved for non
suit. He said that it was clear the
guaranty was absolute, and that there
was no contingent liability which would
prevent the statute of limitation from
running against the plaintiffs. He illus
trated his position by supposing a case in
which the Wells Fargo Bank had become
guaranty for John Smith on a note for
$4,000. payable one year from date. On
the dale of the maturity of the note the
guarantor would pay the note if Mr..
Smith neglected to meet his obligation in
that regard, but if the guarantor declined
to make such settlement and the creditor
OF Mr.. Smith should neglect to bring suit
within the time allowed by the statute
the lawful limitation would be q proper
and unanswera BILE defense to any subse-
quent demand.
Mr.. Cotton spoke in a similar strain on
behalf of his client. Mr.. Merrill.
Judge Trout said be was not altogether
satisfied with the showing made III the
testimony of Mr.. Pierce, and thought that
the person who kept the accounts ought
to be called to verify the financial state
ment that had been presented. He re-
garded the question at issue one of great
importance to the business community,
and thought it ought to be considered
from every possible point OF view. for
which reason he would deny the motion
for nonsuit. and would hear the testi-
mony for the defendants.
Dispositions were then read to show that
the Seml-Tropic Company had consider
able property that was not levied on by
the plaintiff while they were supposed
to be attem pting to collect their money
from the Semi Tropic Company, and it
was also developed that the plaintiffs were
warned by the defendants that the plain
lifts had prior claim by vlrtua of their
mortgage as against other creditors of the
Seml-Tropic Company, but that never
theless the plaintiffs allowed judgment
to be taken against them by default In
litigation wherein they were named as
defendants.
Further hearing of the case will be had
this morning at 10 o'clock.