A promise of guaranty is always revocable at the pleasure of the guarantor by sufficient notice, unless it be made to cover some specific transaction which is not yet exhausted, or unless it be founded upon a continuing consideration, the benefit of which the guarantor cannot or does not renounce.1 If the promise be to guarantee the payment of goods sold up to a certain amount, and after a part has been delivered, the guaranty is revoked, it would seem that the revocation is good, unless it be founded upon a consideration which has been paid to the guarantor for the whole amount; or unless the seller has, in reliance on the guaranty, not only delivered a part to the buyer, but bound himself by a contract enforceable at law to deliver the * residue. And if the guaranty be to indemnify for misconduct of an officer or servant, this promise is revocable, provided the circumstances are such, that when it is revoked, the promisee may dismiss the servant without injury to himself on his failure to provide new and adequate sureties. (ss) 2

It seems, however, that a distinction is taken between the power of revocation, when the guaranty is given by parol contract, and when it is under seal. In the former case this power is very broadly asserted, but in the latter it is almost wholly denied. An eminent judge says, indeed, that there are no means or mode of revocation of guaranty under seal. (t) But whether this is strictly true may well be doubted.

(ss) This sentence was quoted, the law cided in accordance with it, in Phillips v. therein stated approved, and the case de- Foxall, L. R. 7 Q. B. 677.

1 Death of the guarantor is a revocation of a guaranty of the payment by another of goods to be sold, not founded upon any present consideration passing to the guarantor, and providing that it should continue until written notice should be given of its termination. Jordan v. Dobbins, 122 Mass. 168. See Harris v. Fawcett, L. R. 8 Ch. 866, that the personal representative of a guarantor is not liable for advances after the latter's death, especially if party advancing received notice. But the death of one co-surety to a continuing guaranty for future advances does not discharge the other. Beckett v. Addyman, 9 Q. B. D. 783.

2 That the guarantor of a servant's fidelity by a guaranty under seal may, by paying what is due on the discovery of his dishonesty, in equity, compel the delivery and cancellation of his bond, see Burgess 9. Eve, L. R. 13 Eq. 450, per Malins, V. C. See Sanderson v. Aston. L. R. 8 Ex. 73.

(t) Lord Ellenborough, in Hassell v. Long, 2 M. & Sel. 370. And see Bayley, J., in Calvert v. Gordon, 7 B. & C. 809. So in Hough v. Warr, 1 C. & P. 151. Abbott, C. J., expressed the opinion that in a court of law a letter of revocation to the obligee would be of no avail, but that the proper court for relief was a court of equity.