Mickle v. Sanchez

By the Court,

Bennett, J. The papers show that one Maiben of Valparaiso was indebted to the plaintiffs, a firm doing business at San Francisco under the name of E. Mickle & Co. in the sum of |300Q for commissions, and to the firm of Mickle & [201]Co. of Valparaiso, the correspondents of the plaintiffs, in the further sum of $6000. The plaintiffs had, in their hands, goods consigned to them by Maiben of the value of $5514,50, at the market value, over and above all probable charges and commissions thereon. To secure the indebtedness of $6000 to the house of Mickle & Co. of Valparaiso, one Bernardino Sanchez executed a bond to the plaintiffs in the penal sum of $12,000, conditioned, that, if, upon the receipt of a letter from the firm of Mickle & Co. it should appear that Maiben had paid such indebtedness, the bond should be void, otherwise to remain in force.

On the 20th of May 1850, the letter mentioned in the bond was received, wherein it appeared that Maiben was indebted to the firm of Mickle & Co. in the sum of $6514,50. It further appeared from such letter that Maiben had become insolvent and was unable to pay bis debts, but there is no averment of bis insolvency in the declaration.

After the receipt of this letter and on the 23d day of May 1850, an arrangement was made between the plaintiffs and Ber-nardino Sanchez in pursuance of which the above mentioned bond was taken up and a new one executed in the penal sum of $4000. The condition of this latter bond was, that if, on the sale of the balance of the goods in the hands of the plaintiffs, and the subsequent winding up of the accounts of Maiben with them,, the nett proceeds should be sufficient to cancel the indebtedness of Maiben to the plaintiffs, and to the bouse of Mickle & Co. of Valparaiso, the obligation was to be void.

On the 27th day of June I860, the defendant guaranteed the payment of the last mentioned bond, under the same conditions expressed therein. The goods in the hands of the plaintiffs were destroyed by fire without any fault or negligence on their part; and this we shall consider, for the purpose of deciding upon the demurrer, as equivalent to a sale of them at their estimated value.

It is unnecessary to determine whether the undertaking of the defendant is void under the statute of frauds, as we think the demurrer must be sustained on other grounds. The defend[202]