Tissue v. Hanna

Citations

• 158 Pa. 384
• 27 A. 1104
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1596

Syllabus

<p>Guaranty — Judgment note — Due diligence in collection— Question for jury — Guardian and ward.</p> <p>The holder of a promissory note, the payment of which has been guaranteed by the payee at the time of the assignment, must use due diligence to recover from the maker of the note in order to hold the guarantor liable ; but' what constitutes due diligence is a question of fact depending upon the circumstances of each particular case, and is usually a question for the jury.</p> <p>Three days after a ward became of age his guardian made a settlement with him, giving to him amongst other things a judgment note, the payment of which he guaranteed. The note was then seven months past due. The maker of the note lived in another county thirty-five miles distant, was known to the ward, was actively engaged in business, and was in visible possession of real and personal estate worth many times the amount of the note. I-Ie was considered perfectly solvent, and there were no special circumstances tending to excite haste or urgency in collecting the money. The note was mislaid, and suit was not brought upon it until more than two years after its assignment to plaintiff. At that time the maker was insolvent. It appeared that there was a period of four months after the assignment of the note within which it might have been collected. Held, that the question of the guardian’s liability on his guaranty was for the jury, and that a verdict and judgment for plaintiff should be sustained.</p> <p>It seems that there may be cases in which, upon the undisputed testimony, the want of diligence in collecting guaranteed paper is so palpable and so gross that it may be the duty of the court to give a binding instruction to the jury upon its effect.</p>