HARRY M. BURT, APPELLANT,

v.

COMMUNITY NATIONAL BANK OF BAL HARBOUR, A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLEE

CARROLL, Judge.

The appellee bank sued Trio Construction, Inc., and its officers Burton and Belson on *119a promissory note for $25,000 dated January 27, 1960.1 The note evidenced a loan by the hank to the corporation. The two officers named above were indorsers on the note. The appellant Harry M. Burt was a party defendant. In a separate count, the bank sought recovery against him on a written guaranty he made on May 5, 1958. He guaranteed the notes of the corporation to the bank “aggregating a sum not to exceed $50,000” and renewals thereof.2

By answer Burt claimed the guaranty was ■discharged, because the aggregate of $50,000 had been loaned and repaid before the making of the loan in question, and because before making the loan the bank had notified Burt that it would not make any “future accommodations” to the borrowers unless he met additional guaranty requirements, that he had not acceded thereto, and that the loan for which the note sued upon was given was made thereafter without his knowledge and without reference to the guaranty. Attached to the answer was a letter dated April 22, 1959, from the bank to Burt by which the bank informed him that further loans to Trio Construction, Inc., would not be forthcoming unless Burt should furnish certain security (in addition to his guaranty) or “a certified financial statement by a reputable Certified Public Accountant of Mr. Burt’s assets and liabilities in detail.3”

*120Both parties moved for summary judgment. Burt’s motion was denied. The plaintiff’s motion was granted and summary judgment was entered against Burt. The evidentiary matter submitted with the motions disclosed that Burt had not complied with the request of' the bank in its letter of April 22, 1959; that in spite of the bank’s statement to him in that letter that “future accommodations” would not be extended to the corporation except on the conditions set out in the letter, the bank loaned the corporation $25,000 upon obtaining a current financial statement from the corporation and personal statements from the officers-indorsers, Burton and Belson; but that Burt was not informed of the loan, and it was made without his knowledge.

Burt has appealed from the adverse summary judgment. He argues that the guaranty was discharged for the two reasons set out in his answer; that the conduct of the bank estops it from contending the guaranty continued; and that the loan was made on the credit of the borrower.

Although its language would not readily lead one to believe that it was continuing, the parties, through their actions,4 appear to have interpreted the guaranty of “notes aggregating a sum not to exceed $50,000” as a continuing one. Compare Frell v. Dumont-Florida, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 311. We need not, however, decide whether the $50,000 limitation fixed the maximum of the guarantor’s undertaking without limit as to the amount of loans made, or whether the guaranty was intended to apply only to the first $50,000 loaned or advanced.

The action of the bank, through its letter of April 22, 1959, operated to terminate the guaranty. By that letter, the bank notified Burt that no further credit would be 'extended to the corporation unless the guaranty was strengthened in the respects required by the bank, and it is undisputed that the guarantor refused to comply with the bank’s request. Two months later the corporation liquidated its debt in full. Thereafter, in spite of having formally notified the guarantor that it was unwilling to continue extending credit to the corporation on the guaranty as it had been in effect and unless the guarantor met further conditions, the loan involved here was made upon obtaining financial statements from the corporation and its officers without communicating with the guarantor. In 38 C.J.S. Guaranty § 68, it is said: “ * * * the guarantor is discharged from further liability where the guarantee abandons the guaranty with an intention to rely thereon no longer, and in such a case the guarantor’s liability cannot be revived by any subsequent *121arrangement made without his consent between the guarantee and the principal.”

The summary judgment which is appealed from, rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant-appellant Harry M. Burt is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court to enter a summary judgment in favor of the defendant Harry M. Burt.

Reversed and remanded.