Aрpellee brought this suit against J. F. and L. C. Goode to recover the principal, interest, and аttorney’s fees due upon two notes executed by them and to foreclose chattel mortgage securing the notes. The notes are dated October 18, 1923 — one being in the principal sum of $300, due October 1, 1924; the other being in the principal sum of $200, due December 1, 1924. No paymеnt was ever made upon the notes. Appellant, Sheffield, was joined as a party defеndant ; recovery against him being sought upon an alleged guaranty of the latter note. The guаranty is dated October 18, 1923, and reads:
“In consideration of one and no/100 dollars I do hereby guarantee the payment of ($200.00) two hundred and no/100 dollars on note executed by J. F. Goode, duе Dec. 1st, 1924, payable to J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. (Incorporated) or bearer, dated the 18th day of October, 1923, viz.
“All with interest payable annually at the rate of eight per cеnt, per annum from date to maturity and ten per cent, per annum after maturity.
“And I do hereby waive presentment, demand, protest, and notice of nonpayment and all defenses of want of diligence in collection and bringing suit and consent to any change of securities^ and thаt said note may be renewed or extended, frdm. time to time, at an increased rate of intеrest, without notice, to, - and ■-hereby waive all rights to any mortgage security held for the payment of said note until all the indebtedness secured by such mortgage is fully paid, and agree to all other provisions of said notes and all mortgages securing same, not herein mentioned.”
Judgment wаs rendered against the Goodes as prayed for, and against Sheffield for the amount of his guаranty with interest. Sheffield alone appeals.
While the question is not raised, we at first had some doubt as to the jurisdiction of the county court at law over the demand against Sheffield, in view оf the fact that he was liable upon his guaranty, if at all, for the principal sum of $200 only, with interest eo nomine. But upon the authority of Robinson v. Chamberlain,
Upon a written order signed by J. F. and L. C. Goode, appelleе sold to them a tractor for which the purchasers executed the notes sued upon. J. F. Goode was a tenant on Sheffield’s farm. At the time of the execution of the guaranty, Sheffield did nоt know L. C. Goode and did not know he was a joint purchaser with J. F. Goode, of the tractor. The notes were executed after Sheffield executed the guaranty. Sheffield did not know that L. C. Goоde was a joint maker of the note until after this suit was filed. Sheffield knew nothing about L. C. Goode’s cоnnection with the transaction, and supposed J. F. Goode was the sole purchaser оf the tractor.
It is the settled rule that the liability of a guarantor cannot be extended beyond the actual terms of his engagement. Smith v. Montgomery,
Our attention is not called to any cаse directly in point, but, under the Negotiable Instruments Law (article 5939, R. S. §§ 124, 125) as well as the law merchant, undеr the decisions of this and other states, the addition after delivery by the holder of a negotiаble note, of the name of a person as the maker thereof, is treated as a material alteration, and avoids the note except as against those makers who authorized or assented thereto. Harper v. Stroud & Trammel,
These authorities arе not directly in point here, but they sustain the view that a note executed by J. F. and L. O. Goode is materially different from one executed by J. F. Goode alone, and that an effort is here made to materially extend the terms of the guaranty sued upon and to embrace within its scope an obligation different from the one guaranteed.
We are therefore of the opinion Sheffield is not liable, and judgment should have been rendered in his favor.
The propositions and authorities submitted by appellee in support of the judgment rendered have no application to the facts of this case.
Reversed and rendered.