McCann v. Dennett
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, dated on the 23d day of April, 1840, for $421.51, payable to the plaintiff, or order, in one year, with interest. The note was signed by one Emery as principal, and by the defendant as his surety. At the trial upon the general issue, the defendant, in order to show that tho plaintiff had discharged him by making a new contract with Emery, released Emery and introduced him as a witness.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, dated on the 23d day of April, 1840, for $421.51, payable to the plaintiff, or order, in one year, with interest. The note was signed by one Emery as principal, and by the defendant as his surety. At the trial upon the general issue, the defendant, in order to show that tho plaintiff had discharged him by making a new contract with Emery, released Emery and introduced him as a witness. Emery testified that about the time the note became dire, but whether on the day it fell due, or a day or two after, he could not say, he told the plaintiff he had, and he in…
1Opinion of the CourtGilchrist, J.
It has long been established that any agreement between the principal parties, inconsistent with the original agreement to which the surety acceded, will discharge him. And in such cases the true inquiry is, whether the surety were in fact placed in a different situation by what has taken place between the parties, by which change of situation he might have been prejudiced, and not whether he has actually sustained any injury. Moore vs. Bowmaker, 6 Taunt. 379; Ibid. 7; Price 223. This results from the principle that if the surety is discharged at all, he is so at the time the agreement is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Odlin v. GreenleafSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1825
- Bailey v. AdamsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839
- Mahurin v. PearsonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1837
- Townsend v. RiddleSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1822
- Davis v. HugginsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1825