Wheat v. Kendall
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit upon a promissory note signed by one San-born and the defendant, dated November 18, 1829, payable to one Hardy or bearer in one year from date with interest. Upon the trial in the Common Pleas, May term, 1834, it appeared that the defendant was in fact surety for said Sanborn.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note signed by one San-born and the defendant, dated November 18, 1829, payable to one Hardy or bearer in one year from date with interest. Upon the trial in the Common Pleas, May term, 1834, it appeared that the defendant was in fact surety for said Sanborn. The plaintiff purchased the note before it became due without any knowledge of that fact, but subsequent to the time be so purchased it he had notice that the defendant was surety, and afterwards, and after the note became due, he made a contract with Sanborn for a farther delay of payment without the assent…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Parker, J.
We see nothing in this case to make it an exception to the ordinary rule, that if the creditor, with a knowledge that one of the makers of the note is a surety, contraéis with the principal to give day of payment without the consent of the surety, the latter is thereby discharged. 4 N. H. Rep. 231, Grafton Bank Kent; 5 ditto, 99, Bank v. Woodward.
The plaintiff when he took the note liad no knowledge that the defendant was a surety. But he had such knowledge before contracting with the principal to delay the payment, and was under no obligation to make any such contract.
T…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Grafton Bank v. WoodwardSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1829
3Cited by4 opinions
- Crosby v. WyattSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839
- Bailey v. AdamsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839
- Bowman v. NoyesSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841
- Fowler v. BrooksSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842