delivered the opinion of the Court.
This'cause comes before us upon a certificate of division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court of West Tennessee. The plaintiffs, Adams and others, brought an action, against the defendant, Jones, for the amount of certain-goods supplied by them,.upon the credit of the following letter of guaranty:—
“ Raleigh, September 25th, 1832.
“ Mr. William,’ A. Williams: '
“Sir, — On this sheet you have the list of articles wanted for Miss Betsey Miller’s millinery establishment, which you were so very good as to offer to purchase for hér. I will be security for the payment, eithefto you, orto the merchants in New York, of whom you jnay purchase, and you may leave this in their hands, or otherwise, a's may be proper. I hope, to. your favour and view, will , be added alf possible favour ■ by the merchants, to the young lady, in quality and prices of goods, as I have no doubt she merits as much, by her late knowledge of her business, industry, and pure conduct and principles, as any whatever. “ CALVIN’ JONES.”
“ After the compliment that is paid me above!, I should hardly be willing to place my name so near it, was I not told it was necessary and proper the merchants' should "know my handwriting generally, 'and particularly my signature.
“ELIZABETH,A. MILLER.”
The list of the articles was appended tb the letter.
Upon the trial of the causé upon the general issue before the jury, it occurred as á question, “ whether the plaintiffs were bound to give notice to the defendant, that they had accepted or'acted upon the guaranty, and given credit' on the faith of it.” Upon which question the opinions of the judges-were opposed;, and thereupon, according to-the act of congress, on motion of the plaintiffs,, by their, attorney, the point has been certified to this Gourt. A statement of the pleadings, and also- a statement of facts made under the direction of the judges, have been certified as a part of the" record. Some diversity of opinion has existed among the judges, as to the true nature and extent of the question certified; whether.it meant to ask the opinion of this Court," whether, under all the circumstances disclosed in the evidence, any personal notice to the defendant, or any other notice than what was
*213
made known to'Williams, was necessary to fix the liability, of the defendant; or-whether it meant-only to"put the general question of the necessity'of notice in cases of. guaranty. If the former interpretation were adoptéd, it would call upon this Court to express an opinion upon the whole fácts-óf the case, instead of particular, points of law growing out of the same; a practice which is not deemed by'the majority of the Court to be." Correct, under the act of congress on this subject. Act of 1802, .ch, 3!, sec. 6. The latter 'is the interpretation which we are disposed to adopt; and' the question,- which, under this view, is presented, is, whether upon a letter of guaranty addressed to a particular person, or to persons generally, for a future credit to be given to the party in whose-favour the guaranty is drawn, notice is necessary to be given to the guarantor,-that the person. giving the credit has accepted or ácted upon the guaranty,-and given the credit on the faith of it. We are all of dpinipn that it is necessary; and that this is not now an open quéstion. in this Court, after., the decisions which have .been made in Russell v. Clarke, 7 Cranett, 69; Edmondson v. Drake,
5
Peters’ Rep. 624; Douglass v. Reynolds, 7 Peters’ Rep. 113: Lee v. Dick,
It is highly probable, that thé real questions intended to be raised before this Court, upon the certificate of division, were, whether upon the whole evidence, Williams was not to be treated as the agent of the defendant, as well as of Miss Miller, in the procurement’ *214 of this credit from the plaintiffs; and if so, whether the knowledge of Williams of the credit by' the plaintiffs to Miss Miller, upon the faith of the guaranty, was not full notice also to the defendant, and thus, dispensed with any further and other notice to .the defendant. These were matters of fact,-very proper for the. consideration of the jury at the trial; and, if satisfactorily established, would have dispensed with any farther notice: but are by no means matters of law upon which we are called, on, the present occasion, to giye any opinion.
A certificate will be sent to the, circuit court, in conformity to this opinion.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the United States for the district of West Tennessee; and on the point and question on which the judges of the sáid circuit court were opposed in opinion, and which was certified ,to .thiá Court for its opinion, agreeably to the act of congress in such ease made and provided; and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it ,is the,opiñion of this Court, “That the plaintiffs were bound to give notice to the defendant that they had accepted or acted upon the guaranty, and given credit on the. fhith of it.” Whereupor it is now here adjudged and ordered by this Court, that it be so certified to the said circuit court.