205 F. 491 | 6th Cir. | 1913
(after stating the facts as above).
“All the covenants and provisions of tlie said agreement of March 20, 1905, * * * shall apply to the said loan so extended.”
Whether it is intended to refer to the preliminary agreement of March 9th, or to the guaranty of March 25th, the reference includes a “covenant and provision’,’ by Holcomb and Latimer that they will guarantee $20,000 of the debt, and, in either view of the meaning of the reference, the express promise by Holcomb and Latimer in their original guaranty was thus, by the very words of each extension agreement, renewed and repeated' as to the $90,000 loan. If, under the circumstances here existing, a new, express promise by the guarantor is required in order to continue or to recreate his liability, it is here present. The first defense is not sufficient.
The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.