An agreement to guarantee the payment by another of goods to be sold in the future, not founded upon any present consideration passing to the guarantor, is a contract of a peculiar character. Until it is acted upon, it imposes no obligation and creates no liability of the guarantor. After it is acted upon, the sale of the goods upon the credit of the guaranty is the only consideration for the conditional promise of the guarantor to pay for them.
The agreement which the guarantor makes with the person receiving the guaranty is not that I now become liable to you for anything, but that if you sell goods to a third person, I will then become liable to pay for them if such third person does not. It is of the nature of an authority to sell goods upon the credit of the guarantor, rather than of a contract which cannot be rescinded except by mutual consent. Thus such a guaranty is revocable by the guarantor at any time before it is acted upon.
In Offord v. Davies, 12 C. B. (N. S.) 748, the guaranty was of the due payment for the space of twelve months of bills to be discounted, and the court held that the guarantor might revoke it at any time within the twelve months, and that the plaintiff could not recover for bills discounted after such revocation. The ground of the decision was that the defendant’s promise by '¿self created no obligation, but was in the nature of a proposal vhich might be revoked at any time before it was acted on.
Such being the nature of a guaranty, we are of opinion that die death of the guarantor operates as a revocation of it, and that the person holding it cannot recover against his executor or administrator for goods sold after the death. Death terminates the power of the deceased to act, and revokes any authority or license he may have given, if it has not been executed or acted upon. His estate is held upon any contract upon which a liability exists at the time of his death, although it may depend upon *171future contingencies. But it is not held for a liability which is created after his death, by the exercise of a power or authority which he might at any time revoke.
Applying these principles to the case at bar, it follows that the defendant is entitled to judgment. The guaranty is carefully drawn, but it is in its nature nothing more than a simple guaranty for a proposed sale of goods. The provision, that it shall continue until written notice is given by the guarantor that it shall not apply to future purchases, affects the mode in which the guarantor might exercise his right to revoke it, but it cannot prevent its revocation by his death. The fact that the instrument is under seal cannot change its nature or construction. No liability existed under it against the guarantor at the time of his death, but the, goods for which the plaintiffs seek to recover were all sold afterwards.
We are not impressed by the plaintiff’s argument that it is inequitable to throw the loss upon them. It is no hardship to require traders, whose business it is to deal in goods, to exercise diligence so far as to ascertain whether a person upon whose credit they are selling is living.
The decision in Bradbury v. Morgan, 1 H. & C. 249, upon which the plaintiffs rely, was rested upon reasoning which appears to us to be unsatisfactory and inconsistent with the opinion of the same court a year before, in Westhead v. Sproson, 6 H. & N. 728, and with the decision in Offord v. Davies, ubi supra, at the argument of which Bradbury v. Morgan was cited; and it has not since been treated as settling the law of England. Harriss v. Fawcett, L. R. 15 Eq. 311, and L. R. 8 Ch. 866. The reasons of the similar decision in Bank of South Carolina v. Knotts 10 Rich. 543, are open to the same objections.
Judgment for the defendant.