Warner v. Beardsley
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
Error, from the supreme court. Warner was sued as the endorser of a promissory note, of which one Hildreth was maker, and Elmendorf the payee, which was transferred after due to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Error, from the supreme court. Warner was sued as the endorser of a promissory note, of which one Hildreth was maker, and Elmendorf the payee, which was transferred after due to the plaintiff. In November, 1833, Elmendorf, as the receiver of an estate in which the wife of the plaintiff was interested, obtained an order fromlthe court of chancery that Hildreth should pay into court in 20 days $1150, the surplus of certain real estate sold by him as a master in chancery, or that an attachment issue against him. In January, 1824, Hildreth gave to Elmendorf his note, endorsed by the defendant,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Chancellor.
In Pain v. Packard, 13 Johns. R. 174, the supreme court decided that the surety was. discharged where the principal debtor was perfectly responsible at the time the debt became due, and the creditor, although requested by the surety, refused to proceed and collect his debt until the principal became insolvent. This decision was made without argument, and two, at least,-of the judges who concurred therein, afterwards expressly dissented from it, and declared themselves satisfied it was wrong. It was also overruled by Chancellor Kent, in King v. Baldwin, & Fowler, 2 Johns. Ch.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cope v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
- Dehuff v. TurbettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1801
3Cited by31 opinions
- Colgrove v. . TallmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Howe Machine Company v. . FarringtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Marsh v. PikeNew York Court of Chancery · 1844
- Ross v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Moore v. TopliffIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.