
    W. SHANHOUSE SONS, INC., v. GUDELSKY.
    Guaranty — Construction—Special Continuing Guaranty.
    Where contract of guaranty provided that it was to cover debts thus far contracted not to exceed $1,000, and that, in event said debts did not amount to $1,000, guaranty applied to said contracted debts and to future debts not to exceed $1,000; and it is conceded that, at time guaranty was executed, indebtedness contracted did exceed $1,000, and that it had all been paid at time suit was brought, there is no liability; said contract not being special continuing guaranty covering subsequent indebtedness to amount of $1,000.
    Appeal from Kent; Perkins (Willis B.), J.
    Submitted June 16, 1932.
    (Docket No. 76, Calendar No. 36,582.)
    Decided September 16, 1932.
    Assumpsit by W. - Shanhouse Sons, Inc., against Israel G-udelsky on a contract of guaranty. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Harold H. Smedley, for plaintiff.
    Norris, McPherson, Harrington <& Waer, for defendant.
   McDonald, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant in a suit on the following written guaranty signed by the defendant:

“Whereas, W. Shanhouse Sons, manufacturers, Rockford, Illinois, have sold merchandise to I. Gndelsky & Sons Company, located at Muskegon, Michigan, and are extending* credit favors to said company.
“Therefore, in consideration of such credit favors, I, Israel Gudelsky, hereby guarantee and hold myself personally responsible to W. Shanhouse Sons for the account of I. Gudelsky & Sons Company in an amount not to exceed the sum of $1,000.
“This guarantee covers debts thus far contracted not to exceed the sum of $1,000 and in the event that the debts thus far contracted do not amount to $1,000 this guarantee applies to future bills of merchandise to be contracted by said company, the bills contracted and the future bills together not to exceed the sum of $1,000.”

Plaintiff claims the right to recover on the theory that the instrument sued upon is a special continuing guaranty covering subsequent indebtedness to the amount of $1,000. The language of the guaranty will not admit of such a construction.' It plainly states that it does not apply to future indebtedness unless the debts due at the time it was given do not amount to $1,000. It is conceded that the debts at that time amounted to $2,511.51, of which amount the defendant guaranteed to pay $1,000. The record shows that at' the time of suit the entire indebtedness existing when, the guaranty was given had been paid; and that the plaintiff is ■here seeking to recover a balance due on future credits. For this defendant is not liable.

The judgment is affirmed, with' costs to the defendant.

Clark, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.  