“A JOINT AND SEVERAL.”

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 87, 19 April 1913, Page 5

“A JOINT AND SEVERAL.”

PUNIWHAKAU DAIRY COM-

PANY'S GUARANTORS

The Magistrate’s Court yesterdaj was occupied for some time in hearing an interesting case, in which C. A. Lehmann (farmer) sued Thomas Hastie, formerly of Tututawa (dairy farmer), for £7l 2s, under the following circumstances : —ln 1905 the plaintiff, defendant, and 37 others guaranteed by joint and several guarantee the account of the Puniwhakau Dairy Company at the Bank of New South Wales for (£2BOO. In (October, 1912, the Bank called up the guarantee, and sued the plaintiff alone, and he was compelled to pay £2477. By law, he was now entitled to a,. contribution from each of his do-giiarantors, and the defendants was thjoyefore suing for hi;i one-thirty-ninth ‘ share and interest, namely £7l 2s. Mr Robert Spence for the plaintiff;, explained that this was probably the first case in the district of the well-known form of guarantee in connection' with dairy companies, to the farmers a; the “joint and several'” having come home to roost.

The facts; jn the case were admitted, but Mr Rutherfurd, fdr 'the defendant, urged certain legal objections as to the claim succeeding. In the first place he-claimed that Hastie had given notice in 1910, cancelling th; guarantee, and therefore from that date on monies which were received by the Company for produce sold should bo placed to the credit .of the guaranteed account and not kept in separate account and paid out to suppliers.

Mr J. Munro, manager of the Bant of New South Wales, gave evidence that upon receipt of notice from liastie, the Bank immediately closec down the account, and thereafter al operations by the Company were in a new account opened and called No. 2 Account. The moneys paid intc this account were the produce sold, and of course the same moneys were paid out to the suppliers. Mr Rutherfurd further argued that as the guarantee was more than six years old, the Statute of Limitations would apply, and further that the guarantee had become unenforceable by reason of the absence of full disclosure being made to all guarantor? of the fact that the account had beer closed.

Mr Spence replied to the variousobjections which counsel had raised, and said that he need only refer to the guarantee itself which was about as carefully drawn up and as strict a guarantee, as one could well imagine. Further, there was no loophole for escape. The plaintiff had put up the full amount of the guarantee, and he was now, as the law clearly provided, entitled to get contribution from each of his co-guaran-tors, and that in the end each and everyone of the guarantors should pay his full and exact proportion of the total debt. ' The Bank could make any one of the guarantors pay the whole, but in the end the guarantor had to stand no to Ins share.

Mr Ivenrick, S.M., said ho could see no defence to the claim. The plaintiff had paid up the gauarantee, and was now entitled to get equal shares from each of his co-guaran-tors. Ho did not think any statute of limitations could apply to such a case. Judgment would be for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed and costs.