Legal Opinion · Dissent

Poole v. Bradham

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided August 29, 1927No. 12259Published

1Dissent

I am impressed by the position taken by the petitioner, that although Purdy and Bland may have been discharged by the release executed by the guardian Schwartz (as held in the opinion which has been filed), the release of them does not discharge the executor of the will of Abe Levi, the third guarantor of the note and mortgage in question (the opinion holding to the contrary). There is no doubt as to the proposition, that atlaw, the voluntary release by the obligee of a cosurety or coguarantor discharges the other. It is held, however, inMassey v. Brown, 4 S.C. 85, that the rule in equity is…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Saint v. Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1891
  2. In re Locust Bldg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
  3. Poullain v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1888
  4. Hallock v. YankeyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Lewis v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Georgia · 1888

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API