W. Shanhouse Sons, Inc. v. Gudelsky

Michigan Supreme Court

W. Shanhouse Sons, Inc. v. Gudelsky

244 N.W. 145, 259 Mich. 510, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1005

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 16, 1932

DocketDocket No. 76, Calendar No. 36,582.

StatusPublished

This text of 244 N.W. 145 (W. Shanhouse Sons, Inc. v. Gudelsky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

W. Shanhouse Sons, Inc. v. Gudelsky, 244 N.W. 145, 259 Mich. 510, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1005 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

McDonald, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant in a suit on the following written guaranty signed by the defendant:

“Whereas, W. Shanhouse Sons, manufacturers, Rockford, Illinois, have sold merchandise to I. Gndelsky & Sons Company, located at Muskegon, Michigan, and are extending* credit favors to said company.

*511 “Therefore, in consideration of such credit favors, I, Israel Gudelsky, hereby guarantee and hold myself personally responsible to W. Shanhouse Sons for the account of I. Gudelsky & Sons Company in an amount not to exceed the sum of $1,000.

“This guarantee covers debts thus far contracted not to exceed the sum of $1,000 and in the event that the debts thus far contracted do not amount to $1,000 this guarantee applies to future bills of merchandise to be contracted by said company, the bills contracted and the future bills together not to exceed the sum of $1,000.”

Plaintiff claims the right to recover on the theory that the instrument sued upon is a special continuing guaranty covering subsequent indebtedness to the amount of $1,000. The language of the guaranty will not admit of such a construction.' It plainly states that it does not apply to future indebtedness unless the debts due at the time it was given do not amount to $1,000. It is conceded that the debts at that time amounted to $2,511.51, of which amount the defendant guaranteed to pay $1,000. The record shows that at' the time of suit the entire indebtedness existing when, the guaranty was given had been paid; and that the plaintiff is ■here seeking to recover a balance due on future credits. For this defendant is not liable.

The judgment is affirmed, with' costs to the defendant.

Clark, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

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

McDonald, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant in a suit on the following written guaranty signed by the defendant:

“Whereas, W. Shanhouse Sons, manufacturers, Rockford, Illinois, have sold merchandise to I. Gndelsky & Sons Company, located at Muskegon, Michigan, and are extending* credit favors to said company.

*511 “Therefore, in consideration of such credit favors, I, Israel Gudelsky, hereby guarantee and hold myself personally responsible to W. Shanhouse Sons for the account of I. Gudelsky & Sons Company in an amount not to exceed the sum of $1,000.

“This guarantee covers debts thus far contracted not to exceed the sum of $1,000 and in the event that the debts thus far contracted do not amount to $1,000 this guarantee applies to future bills of merchandise to be contracted by said company, the bills contracted and the future bills together not to exceed the sum of $1,000.”

Plaintiff claims the right to recover on the theory that the instrument sued upon is a special continuing guaranty covering subsequent indebtedness to the amount of $1,000. The language of the guaranty will not admit of such a construction.' It plainly states that it does not apply to future indebtedness unless the debts due at the time it was given do not amount to $1,000. It is conceded that the debts at that time amounted to $2,511.51, of which amount the defendant guaranteed to pay $1,000. The record shows that at' the time of suit the entire indebtedness existing when, the guaranty was given had been paid; and that the plaintiff is ■here seeking to recover a balance due on future credits. For this defendant is not liable.

The judgment is affirmed, with' costs to the defendant.

Clark, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 N.W. 145, 259 Mich. 510, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-shanhouse-sons-inc-v-gudelsky-mich-1932.