Dunlap v. Foster
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the County Court of Tuscaloosa. This was a motion by the defendant, against the plaintiff in error. The record discloses, that Dunlap and Miller, were the sureties of one Lee, to the State Bank; that the Bank, by motion, obtained a judgment against Lee, and his sureties. That execution issued thereon, and was levied on certain slaves, the property of Lee.
Read the full summary
Error to the County Court of Tuscaloosa. This was a motion by the defendant, against the plaintiff in error. The record discloses, that Dunlap and Miller, were the sureties of one Lee, to the State Bank; that the Bank, by motion, obtained a judgment against Lee, and his sureties. That execution issued thereon, and was levied on certain slaves, the property of Lee. That Lee gave a forthcoming bond to the sheriff for the delivery of the slaves, on the day of the sale, with Foster as his surety. That the bond was forfeited, and that execution issued thereon against Foster, as well as the parties…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
A surety does not lose his distinctive character, or forfeit the rights which spring from that relation, by a judgment being rendered against him, jointly with his principal, as was held by this Court, in the .case of Carpenter v. Devon, 6 Ala. Rep. 718.
Notwithstanding, therefore, a judgment was obtained against Lee, and his sureties by the Bank, the relation of principal and surety still existed between them, and they do not therefore stand in the relation of principal, to Foster. Are they co-sureties with him, for the principal debtor?
It is not necessary to create the relation of co-surety,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Carpenter v. DevonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
3Cited by2 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Yeilding Bros.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Fitzpatrick's Adm'r v. HillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846