I think the contract sued on is one of suretyship rather than of guaranty. While the contract might have benefited the sureties the benefit was not a consideration arising out of the note to the Bank of Monroe or out of the contract. The avoidance of assessment was a motive and by-product but not a consideration. The contract is no more than the endorsements of the note as sureties. But, whether the contract is one of suretyship or guaranty it was barred by the statute of limitations.