
    JOHN F. GREER v. JOHN JONES.
    'The guaranty of a promissory note, made by a third person, subsequently to its execution, without any new consideration, is not obligatory.
    (The case Green v. 'Thornton, 4 Jones’, 230, cited with approbation.
    Tms was an action of assumpsit, brought to the Superior 'Court of Ashe County, by appeal from a Justice of the Peace, and tried before Heatii, J., at the Fall Term, 1859, of that Court.
    Franklin Baker .gave bis promissory note to Morrison, Gaither cfc-Co., as follows.:
    “ $70.87 April 6th, 1853.
    Ninety- -days -after date, I promise to pay to the order of Morrison, Gaither & Co., Seventy dollars and eighty-seven cents. Value received.”
    On which is the following: “ I endorse the within payable at Christmas next, this 2nd of May, 1857.
    Signed, John Jones.”
    ■and afterwards appears this endorsement: “ Pay the within to John F. Greer and no recourse to us.
    Morrison, Gaither & Co.
    ■Dec. 5 th 1857.”
    'The -suit was brought by warrant against John Jones, on his guaranty. On the proof of these signatures the plaintiff rested his case, but his Honor intimating that the plaintiff” could not recover in this suit against the guarantor, for the want of a consideration, he took & nonsuit and appealed.
    
      JBoyden, for the plaintiff.
    
      'Grumpier, for the defendant
   Battle, J.

The only ground upon which the liability of the defendant could be .placed, was that of the guaranty of ■the promissory note, executed by Franklin Baker to Morrison, •Gaither & Co. This guaranty was made about four years after the -date of the note, and after it became due, and no consideration whatever was shown for it. In Oreen v. Thornton, 4 Jones’, 280 we said : “ that it is not and cannot be denied, that a guaranty in wilting, made at the time of a contract between two or more persons is binding upon the guarantor, because it is founded upon the consideration which exists between the principal parties. But if it be made afterwards, without any new consideration, then it is not obligatory, and the putting it in writing, if not under seal, will not help.” These remarks are directly applicable to the facts of the case now before us, and are decisive against the claim of the plaintiff. Hpon this point then, without adverting to any other, the judgment of nonsuit was right, and must be affirmed.

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.  