Hogaboom v. Herrick
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, signed by the defendant and one Stockwell, which by the agreement of the parties was submitted to referees, and the same was made a rule 'of court. The referees reported generally, that the plaintiff having maintained his action against the defendant, ought to recover the 'sum of thirty four dollars, and twenty-five cents, and his costs.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, signed by the defendant and one Stockwell, which by the agreement of the parties was submitted to referees, and the same was made a rule 'of court. The referees reported generally, that the plaintiff having maintained his action against the defendant, ought to recover the 'sum of thirty four dollars, and twenty-five cents, and his costs. They also made a special report disclosing the following facts : 1. It was agreed by the parties that the defendant signed the note for twenty-five dollars, on which this action was brought, as surety for…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court delivered by
Baylies, J.
Thedefendant insists, that his requesting the plaintiff in 1825, to sue Stockwell, the principal debtor, and then informing the plaintiff that he did not wish to stand surety for Stockwell any longer, and the plaintiffs neglecting for three years afterwards to sue Stockwell, till he died insolvent, discharged the defendant from his liability on the note. The surety has certain rights, and privileges, which are secured to him by law. In the case of Hayes vs. Ward, (4 J. C. R. 132,) Kent, Chancellor, says, “ it is now considered a settled rule, that a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Pain v. PackardNew York Supreme Court · 1816
- Roger v. DavisSupreme Court of Vermont · 1826
3Cited by5 opinions
- Stark v. FullerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
- Smith v. FreylerMontana Supreme Court · 1882
- Martin v. Town of WellsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1871
- Amoskeag Bank v. RobinsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1860
- Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co. v. New York Hamilton Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930