Russell v. La Roque
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Sumter. Assumpsit by plaintiff on promissory note for $700, due 1st March, 1839. Upon the trial, as appears from a bill of exceptions, the defendants introduced an affidavit and interrogatories, propounded to the plaintiff, with his answers thereto.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Sumter. Assumpsit by plaintiff on promissory note for $700, due 1st March, 1839. Upon the trial, as appears from a bill of exceptions, the defendants introduced an affidavit and interrogatories, propounded to the plaintiff, with his answers thereto. The affidavit stated in substance, that the note sued on was given to plaintiff to indemnify him as security for one William L. La Roque, on a note for $1919 37, to the Tombigbee Railroad Company, dated February 8th, 1838, and due at four months. That from the lapse of time said Russell was discharged from liability…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
What is the true nature of the indemnity intended to be given to the surety, by the execution of the note in suit? Was it designed as a mere indemnity against loss, in th.e event he was compelled to pay the debt for his principal, or did the parties intend to provide an indemnity against liability to suit ? We held in effect that it was the latter, when this case was here at a previous term, (7 Ala. R. 798) and such is still our opinion.
It is frequently a matter of great doubt and difficulty, what the true nature of an indemnity is, but the circumstance which influenced our judgment…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Cooper v. ParkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
- Searcy v. ShowsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Merchants & Manufacturers' National Bank v. CumingsNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Bradford v. BarclaySupreme Court of Alabama · 1868