u. =. Circuit Court.
naf.x. f..l.a n.kS.
{"character_count": 1721, "word_count": 308, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9753000140190125], "ccnet_perplexity": [2155.0], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



DEC. o. Bei@ Grant VS. Mafhias B,1xn Tins was IN
action on gusrrutee to recover Of 7l0 l3s.
appeared the plaintiffs are extensive merchants in Lon
don, aud were doing large commission business for
American houses from 1891 10 1889. The counsel in
opening stated that MessTs c. w. and Herman Bruen,
sons OF defendant had been unfortunate business in
1884 but concluded that Mr.. Thorn, who had
been clerk in the establishment should continue the bu
sness in his and that G. w. Bruen should he
in the store managing affairs and in feet directing It. Az
the firm had large dealings abroad in order 10
enable them to continue II necessary that credit
should be established in London Matthias Bruen being
wealthy, allowed his son, q. w. Bruen, to make OF
his name to any extent Defendant also plaintiff
expressing himself gratihed with the patronage he
tended Tn Ar horn and stang fhnf thay might consider
him for any which might in future
be between them In 1897, Mir Thorn and @. w. Bruen
failed, defendant being their creditor large amount
They showed but slight assets, and it generally sup
posed defendant was secure On MIR. Grant coming to
this country during the year, defendant said his house
B q held general guarantee OF his for Mr. Thorn
but had recollection of having given IT, In 1882
plaintiff entered suit against defendant for the balance
asserted to be due by MIR Thorn 1t contended ON
the trial. in lSl that guarantee could only be shown
by general guarantee bond and the Circuit Judges Of
this Dstr OF ruled and the went favor Of Mr.
BrHen but in appealing to the Supreme Court the dec
sion was reversed and the sent back for
trial.


Daniel D. Lord for plaintiff; Mr. Bidwell and J. r Hall
for defendant