Case Name: LIPPMAN v. GOTTESMAN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-02-24
Citations: 121 N.Y.S. 325
Docket Number: 
Parties: LIPPMAN v. GOTTESMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 121
Pages: 325–326

Head Matter:
(66 Misc. Rep. 165.)
LIPPMAN v. GOTTESMAN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
February 24, 1910.)
Guaranty (§ 56 )—Continuing Guaranty—Extension or Tike—Release.
The acceptance by a creditor of the debtor’s time notes for a portion of the debt does not operate to release a guarantor under a continuing guaranty from his obligation to pay the balance not so extended.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Guaranty, Dec. Dig. § 56. ]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.
Action by Barnet Lippman against Leopold Gottesman. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before SEABURY, GUY, and WHITNEY, JJ.
Harold H. Cohen, for appellant.
Phillips & Samuels, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Anr. Digs. 1907 to date,.& Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The facts are not in dispute. Defendant had given a continuing guaranty of the price of goods to be sold to his brother-in-law, one Mandell, by the plaintiff, on credit of 60 days. From March 7, 1907, to December 3, 1908, plaintiff sold various goods to Mandell, who neglected to pay at the end of the term of credit. In some instances notes were, taken from him, which operated as an extension of the credit and discharged the guarantor as to the amounts covered thereby. The indebtedness now sued for is for goods sold on 60 days' credit after December 3, 1908, and as to which there has been no extension of time. Defendant contends that the guaranty was terminated altogether by the prior extensions. We consider ourselves bound by Klein v. Long, 27 App. Div. 158, 50 N. Y. Supp. 419, to hold to the contrary, and affirm the judgment.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.