McGuire v. Gerstley, ante,
p. 204 U. S. 489
followed and held also:
The liability of sureties on the bond in this case given to
secure payment for goods old on a specified credit was not affected
by failure of the seller to notify the sureties of nonpayment at
the expiration of the credit, or by their giving an extension of
credit, there being no definite term of such extension.
26 App.D.C. 205, affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM delivered the opinion of the Court.
The defendants in error, plaintiffs below, obtained judgment
against the plaintiff in error for $5,000 and interest in April,
1905, in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which
judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 26 App.D.C. 205, and
the plaintiff in error has brought the case here for review.
It is the same action as the foregoing case, just decided, but
the plaintiff in error, who was one of the sureties in the bond,
separately filed special pleas to the declaration, which were
separately demurred to, and the supreme court sustained the
demurrer. On appeal to the Court of Appeals the demurrer was not
disposed of at the same time as the demurrers to the other pleas in
the case, but was postponed to a subsequent time -- April 7, 1905.
On that date the demurrer
Page 204 U. S. 505
was sustained and the judgment previously entered affirmed
against this plaintiff in error, who then brought the case here on
a separate writ of error.
The special pleas filed by the plaintiff in error were seven in
number, the first six being the same as filed by the other
plaintiffs in error in the case. The seventh set up the failure of
the plaintiffs to give notice to the sureties that the principals
in the bond had not paid for the goods at the expiration of the
term of credit allowed them, and also that the time had been
extended by the plaintiffs in which the principals in the bond
might pay for the goods sold to them. No definite term of extension
was stated. What has already been said in regard to the other six
pleas in the case determines the decision in regard to the same
pleas hereinabove set forth. In regard to the seventh plea, the
plaintiff in error says in his brief in this Court that he makes no
point concerning the same.