Roberts v. Riddle

1. A guaranty of the payment of a written obligation “ according to its terms,” is broken by non-payment when the time of payment arrives, and the guarantor is liable without pursuing the debtor to insolvency. 2. Campbell v. Baker, 10 Wright 243, followed.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county: Of October and November Term 1874, No. 158. This was an action of assumpsit, brought February 14th 1874, by William Riddle against W. B. Roberts, J. W. Humphreys and W. H. Abbott. The cause of action was a guaranty of bond issued by the city of Titusville. The bond and guarantee (which was endorsed on it) were as follows:— 1,1 It is hereby certified that the city of Titusville is indebted unto William Riddle in the sum of $10,000, redeemable .at the pleasure of the city of Titusville after the 24th day of April 1872, and payable on the 23d day of June 1872, with interest at the rate of eight per cent, per annum. * * * This debt is., authorized by the Act of Assembly of the state of Pennsylvania, approved the 8th day of March, A. D. 1872.” “ For value received, we, the undersigned, guaranty the payment of the within bond according to its terms. April 24th 1872.” The guaranty was signed by the three defendants. The affidavit of defence, filed March 18th 1874, was :— “ W. B. Roberts and W. II. Abbott, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that they are two of the defendants in this case, and that they, together with their co-defendant, have a full, just, and, as they are informed by counsel, a legal defence to the whole of the plaintiff’s claim, the nature and character of which is as follows : That the defendants were simply guarantors for the payment of the bonds of the city of Titusville, upon which suit is brought, and not liable until after the said plaintiff, by due diligence in effort to collect said claim from the said city of Titus-ville, has failed by reason of the insolvency of said city ; that the plaintiff has not made proper efforts to collect said bonds'from the city of Titusville, the obligor, which said city has abundant assets, property and facilities for paying or,causing said bonds to be paid.” On the 21st of May 1874, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence ; the damages were liquidated at $12,584.54. The defendants took a writ of error and assigned for error, entering judgment for want of an affidavit of defence.