Summary
concluding that an agreement under which the "undersigned ... guarantee[d] the full and prompt payment to you, of all indebtedness due to you" was not a guarantee despite the use of that term
Summary of this case from TD Bank v. HillOpinion
Submitted May 5, 1977
Decided June 9, 1977
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, JOSEPH DI FEDE, J.
Michael Mantell for appellant.
Irving Barry for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The plaintiff agreed to open an account for the appellant if the appellant would sign a "guarantee" furnished by the plaintiff. The appellant signed and returned the "guarantee" which provides that "For value received and the further consideration of any credit that you may hereafter from time to time extend to 91 East End Corporation * * * the undersigned does hereby guarantee the full and prompt payment to you, of all indebtedness due to you which the said 91 East End Corporation has heretofore incurred and does hereafter incur". Although described as a guarantee this writing is actually an agreement or promise to pay appellant's own obligation for purchases made on its own account (see, e.g., Deeves Son v Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 195 N.Y. 324, 331). The plaintiff's business records introduced into evidence at the trial show that the materials were delivered to the appellant's address and credited to its account. In fact, at the trial appellant admitted that the materials were supplied and used in the construction project at its premises. On this record we agree with the trial court that the evidence established appellant's obligation to pay for the goods sold, delivered and credited to its account.
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.