Summary

Lawrence v. McCalmont — Opinion of the Court

But that which puts the whole matter in the clearest light and beyond the reach of legal controversy, is that the advances now sued for were all made after the second letter of credit was given; and if the guarantee applied (as we hold it did) to those subsequent advances under the new engagements, then the consideration was complete as upon a present and not as upon a past consideration. In every view, therefore, in which we can contemplate the objection it has no just foundation in law.
Source: Wikisource

Lawrence v. McCalmont — Opinion of the Court

We should never forget that letters of guarantee are commercial instruments-generally drawn up by merchants in brief language-sometimes inartificial, and often loose in their structure and form; and to construe the words of such instruments with a nice and technical care would not only defeat the intentions of the parties, but render them too unsafe a basis to rely on for extensive credits, so often sought in the present active business of commerce throughout the world.
Source: Wikisource

Lawrence v. McCalmont — Opinion of the Court

The guarantee is to continue and apply to transactions between the firms as changed. The words 'to continue and apply' would seem to convey the idea that the guarantee is to continue the 'same,' except so far as modified by applying it to the firms as changed. A vague and loose construction of a guarantee under the pretence of liberalizing it, can only serve to involve the whole subject in uncertainty. A change in a firm, where the business and good-will continues, leaves it substantially the same firm.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature