Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-02-01
JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS.
law Court Decision in Case Involving
Oakland Wooden Co. A counts.

Clerk of Courts c. w. Jones MONDAY
received a decision from the law court
giving judgment for the plaintihs Tor
s2S57 Ii with interest from GATE OF WIFI
in the Kenncbec county case OF Wliilam
Barnet & Son of Albany, \. T., VS.. VII
liam T. Haines of Waterville. ms ac-
ton came before the law court on report
from the October term of the kennebec
county supreme judicial court and IN
wolves TIE question whether the defend
ants guarantee of a debt due from the
Oakland Wooden Co to the plaintiffs COW
cred only accounts due and goods ordered
prior to the date Of .le written guaran-
tee or was continuing guarantee ana
covered subsequent transactions. The re-
script is as follows:
KFNNEBEC COUNTY.
William Barnet ct al. VS.. william L.
Haine. Rescript, per curlanl.
This action. which is before the law
court on renort. is brought against the
defendant as guarantor of debt due
from the Oakland Wooden Co. to the
plaintiffs. and the question is whether the
guaranty covered only those accounts que,
and certain other goods ordered put not
delivered prior to the date Wheh the
written Guaranty was given July S, 1908
or whether 1t was a continuing guaranty
and covered also goods sold ana oeliV-
cred subsequent to that date Inc pam
lifts urge the latter construction the
defendant the former
II appears from the evidence that the
representative of the plaintiffs on June
% 1908. interviewed the agent or the
wooden company at Oakland in regard to
an account then overdue for goods or
dered but not shipped and also in regard
to further sales; and no conclusion beng
reached went to Bangor and saw the de-
PENDANT, who was treasurer of the COM
pany TIL parties are at issue as to what
was said at the Bangor interview, ana II
the case contained nothing further we
should not feel justified in holding that
the plaintiffs contention of a continuing
guaranty had been proved by prepon-
derance of the ev4Lence. But the subse-
uuent words and acts of the parties are
convincing.
1t is admitted that the defendant prom
ised to put his guaranty in writing and
send it to the plaintiff. On July 8, 1908,
not having received it the plaintiffs wrote
to the defendant as follows: kindly send
the guaranty for accounts due and for
future sales to the Oakland Wooden Co,
as per your promise to our Mr.. Henry B.
Barnet We have shipped them stock to-
day Also send check as agreed
There is no ambiguity about this state
ment of the agreement. 1t covers fu-
ture sales" in express terms. On it's re-
ceipt the defendant did not object to it's
terms, or notify the plaintiffs that he had
made no such agreement. but implicitly if
not expressly assented thereto by endors-
ing on the letter the following guaranty:
"Watervile, Maine, July s, 1908.
ITO VIM. Barnet & Son,
albany. n. Y.
Dear Sirs:-
Agreeable to my promise to Mr.. Henry
B. Barnet. I do hereby guarantee all ac-
counts for goods sold by you to Oakland
Wooden Co and agree to pay the same
yours truly,
: st'WN. T. HAINES."
The words call accounts for goods sold
might under some circumstances be re
Sarded as ambiguous and doubt might
arise as to whether they were intended to
mean goods already sold or goods sold at
any time both past and future. But the
guaranty in this case is not to be con-
strued alone 1t must be read in connec-
ton with the letter which called it out.
and when so read all ambiguity vanishes
and the scope of the guaranty is appar-
ent. The plaintiffs relied upon it and had
q right to rely upon it for future as well
as past sales Sullivan V. Arcand 16.
Mass 3G4: Celluloid Co. V. Haines. 176
Mass. Ais; Maine Red Granite Co. V. York
50 Maine, 54
The subsequent correspondent between
the parties confirms this view, because