Legal Opinion

Warden v. Ryan

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided November 5, 1889PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. The defense upon which defendant relies, and which arises out of the conceded state of facts in this case, is the change in the building contract after the execution of the bond, without assent on his part, by increasing the consideration to be paid the contractors, the principals in the obligation.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. The defense upon which defendant relies, and which arises out of the conceded state of facts in this case, is the change in the building contract after the execution of the bond, without assent on his part, by increasing the consideration to be paid the contractors, the principals in the obligation. A material and subsequent modification of the contract for which the bond is indemnity discharges the surety. The rule discharging the surety does not spring from, nor is it affected by, any consideration, whether the…

1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, P. J.

The liability of a surety depends on the identity of the contract and its sirictissimi juris. If the contract between the principals be altered without his consent, so as to destroy its identity, he is discharged, and it is immaterial whether the alteration be for his benefit or not, because he has a right to stand upon the very terms of his agreement. This proposition is so firmly imbedded in the law of principal and surety that no considerations of apparent equity áre permitted to disturb it, however great the hardships may be which, in individual cases, appeal for a modification of the…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Greenville v. OrmandSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1897
  2. O'Neal v. KelleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
  3. Ashenbroedel Club v. FinlayMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
  4. Reissaus v. WhitesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
  5. Welch v. Hubschmitt Building & Woodworking Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1897

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API