Opinion
1 Div. 116.
December 19, 1940.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; F. W. Hare, Judge.
J. D. Ratcliffe, of Monroeville, for appellant.
Defendants' special pleas fail to show that plaintiff had any knowledge of the alleged condition on which defendants executed the bond or contract sued on prior to or at the time plaintiff received, approved and accepted the same. The demurrer should have been sustained. Watkins Co. v. Hargett, 209 Ala. 165, 95 So. 811; Birmingham News Co. v. Moseley, 225 Ala. 45, 141 So. 689. Replications show the contract was a Minnesota contract and governed by the laws of that State. They constitute a full answer to said pleas. Furst Thomas v. Sandlin, 208 Ala. 490, 94 So. 740; Watkins Co. v. Daniel, 228 Ala. 399, 153 So. 771; Rawleigh Co. v. Deavours, 209 Ala. 127, 95 So. 459.
C. L. Hybart, of Monroeville, for appellees.
Defendant's pleas are a good and sufficient defense to the suit. Rawleigh Co. v. Williams, 235 Ala. 623, 180 So. 272.
This is a suit on a bond or contract of guaranty by the terms of which guarantors jointly, severally and unconditionally guaranteed to pay the indebtedness, the amount of which is written in the agreement, for certain goods, wares and merchandise sold by the appellant to one Stabler, the principal obligor, in the instrument on which suit is based.
The assignment of error superinducing the involuntary nonsuit was the overruling of demurrer to Pleas C and D, and the sustaining of demurrer to replications two and three to said plea.
Defendants Turberville and Rutherford, by special pleas, attempted to defend the suit on the ground that each signed the contract of guaranty on condition that one McDuffie was to execute the instrument as guarantor before delivery, and that the principal obligor delivered the instrument to plaintiff without procuring the required signature of said third party.
There was no error in the ruling of the trial court, which was according to the decision in O'Neal v. Turner, 230 Ala. 24, 158 So. 801, and the ruling in W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Williams, 235 Ala. 623, 180 So. 272. The later cases collect the authorities to like effect by this court.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GARDNER, C. J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.