Opinion
No. 31,179.
June 11, 1937.
Guaranty — validity — sufficiency of consideration.
The promise of the seller of goods under an executory written contract is sufficient consideration without more for the promise made by sureties of the purchaser to guarantee performance by him.
Action in the district court for Grant county to recover under a contract for the sale of goods by plaintiff to defendant Franken wherein defendants W.H. Schneeberger and George Bouressa as sureties guaranteed payment of the indebtedness under the contract. The case was tried before Stephen A. Flaherty, Judge, and a jury. At the close of the evidence the court directed a verdict for plaintiff against defendant W.H. Schneeberger, who appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial. Affirmed.
R.J. Stromme and William M. Goetzinger, for appellant.
Hall Catlin, for respondent.
Defendant Schneeberger appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial after a verdict had been directed against him and in favor of plaintiff.
The suit is on a contract between plaintiff and defendant Franken. The contract in the main was one for the sale of merchandise by plaintiff to Franken. It contemplated the extension of credit to the latter. There apparently had been a previous contract under which, when the contract in suit was made in January, 1934, Franken was indebted to plaintiff. In consideration of the acceptance of the new contract by plaintiff, defendant Schneeberger and another became his sureties guaranteeing payment to plaintiff by Franken of the indebtedness owing to plaintiff arising under the contract. This suit is to recover the balance of such indebtedness, amounting to $378.46.
The only defense is want of consideration "to support that contract by the defendant Schneeberger." As the record stands, the conclusion is inescapable that plaintiff bound itself by written contract to Franken upon the faith in part of the undertaking by the sureties to guarantee performance by Franken. In that situation there is no merit in the claim that there was no consideration for the contract. J. R. Watkins Medical Co. v. McCall, 116 Minn. 389, 133 N.W. 966.
Order affirmed.