Terracino v. Gordon and Hiller
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PETERS, J.
This case lies at the intersection of two principles of the law of suretyship. One principle permits a guarantor expressly to waive common-law defenses to his liability for the debt of another. Connecticut National Bank v. Douglas, 221 Conn. 530, 544-45, 606 A.2d 684 (1992). The other principle presumes that, between coguarantors for the same debt, each coguarantor is liable only for a contributive share of the total outstanding debt. Restatement (Third), Suretyship and Guaranty §§55 through 57 (1996); Collins v. Throckmorton, 425 A.2d 146, 151-52 (Del. 1980); Albrecht v.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Wadia Enterprises, Inc. v. HirschfeldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Connecticut National Bank v. DouglasSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Keller v. BeckensteinConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- Albrecht v. WalterNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- Collins v. ThrockmortonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1980
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Terracino v. BuzziConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
- Terracino v. Gordon and HillerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010