Cases On Guaranty And Suretyship

ntended to be used in a distributive sense, and apply to any bank or banks who should purchase the drafts. I can see no object which the drawers should have for limiting the party for whose benefit the letter was issued to a single bank. It is said that it would enable them more readily to revoke the authority. But these letters are not issued without either undoubted confidence in the persons for whose benefit they are drawn, or upon ample security. The idea of giving notice of revocation to any party but that for whose benefit they are drawn, is never entertained by the guarantors in cases of general letters. When they wish to provide for any such contingency the letters are framed accordingly. Again, in this case the parties themselves have treated this letter as not limited to a single bank, for they accepted bills which had been discounted by the plaintiffs. I am, therefore, satisfied that the plaintiffs were authorized to purchase bills upon the faith of the letter and accompanying guaranty, and that the previous purchase of bills by another bank is no defense. Whether the letters had been revoked with the knowledge of the plaintiffs before the draft was discounted by them, was a question of fact for the jury. It would clearly constitute no defense unless the plaintiffs had notice of it. The judgment of the superior court must therefore be affirmed with costs. Judgment affirmed. The Evansville National Bank Of Evansville. Indiana, Respondent, vs. Adolp...