Manhattan Rolling Milll v. Dellon

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Manhattan Rolling Milll v. Dellon

113 N.Y.S. 571

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 16, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 113 N.Y.S. 571 (Manhattan Rolling Milll v. Dellon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Manhattan Rolling Milll v. Dellon, 113 N.Y.S. 571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

HENDRICK, J.

The guaranty in question is not ambiguous, and it was unnecessary to resort to the facts and circumstances out of which it arose. The extent of the defendant’s obligation must be determined from all of the language used. The language of the guaranty does not disclose any ambiguity. There appears to be nothing in the language which gives to the guaranty a retrospective operation so as to include debts already contracted. Ordinarily a guaranty refers to the future debts, and, in the absence of a clear intention to include an accrued indebtedness, the obligation will not be extended. It is quite unnecessary, therefore, to consider the testimony adduced on the trial to show the dealings of the parties. It is only where the terms of a contract are indefinite or the language ambiguous that the question of meaning becomes one for the jury. Here it should have been determined by the court, and interpreted according to the rules for the construction of contracts.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide 'the event. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HENDRICK, J.

The guaranty in question is not ambiguous, and it was unnecessary to resort to the facts and circumstances out of which it arose. The extent of the defendant’s obligation must be determined from all of the language used. The language of the guaranty does not disclose any ambiguity. There appears to be nothing in the language which gives to the guaranty a retrospective operation so as to include debts already contracted. Ordinarily a guaranty refers to the future debts, and, in the absence of a clear intention to include an accrued indebtedness, the obligation will not be extended. It is quite unnecessary, therefore, to consider the testimony adduced on the trial to show the dealings of the parties. It is only where the terms of a contract are indefinite or the language ambiguous that the question of meaning becomes one for the jury. Here it should have been determined by the court, and interpreted according to the rules for the construction of contracts.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide 'the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.Y.S. 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manhattan-rolling-milll-v-dellon-nyappterm-1908.