The contract is ambiguous as to the intention of the parties at the time it was made. In Western Bank v. Youngs, 274 Or. 213, 545 P.2d 886 (1976), the defendant wife had given the bank "an unlimited guaranty of present and future credit" for the obligations of her husband. Her husband later guaranteed loans from the bank to their son, who failed to pay.
In none of the cases cited by defendants on this point was the guaranty language so broad as that contained in the instant guaranty. ( National Bank of Commerce v. Rockefeller (8th Cir. 1909), 174 F. 22 (guaranty of "debts"); Western Bank v. Youngs (1976), 274 Or. 213, 545 P.2d 886 ("all indebtedness"); Trego WaKeeney State Bank v. Maier (1974), 214 Kan. 169, 519 P.2d 743 (application of ejusdem generis to specifically identified obligations, thereby distinguishing Fannin).) Under Fannin, therefore, we hold that the personal guaranty at issue here reaches the personal guaranty for Select's liability under its corporate guaranty.
In interpreting contracts of suretyship, ordinary rules of interpretation are to be applied. Union Oil Co. of Calif. v. Lull, 220 Or. 412, 425-26, 349 P.2d 243 (1960). In Western Bank v. Youngs, 274 Or. 213, 218, 545 P.2d 886 (1976), the Supreme Court found ambiguity in a written agreement as to the scope of a guarantor's liability, and it determined the meaning by looking to the true intention of the parties as expressed in the testimony. That case, however, did not involve a summary judgment.