Bank of Steubenville v. Hoge
Ohio Supreme Court
This cause was reserved in the county of Jefferson. It was an action of debt upon a bond. The declaration was in the usual, form. The defendants, Hoge, Andrews, and Jenkinson, craved oyer of the bond, which was had.
Read the full summary
This cause was reserved in the county of Jefferson. It was an action of debt upon a bond. The declaration was in the usual, form. The defendants, Hoge, Andrews, and Jenkinson, craved oyer of the bond, which was had. It is in these words : “ Know all men by these presents, that we, J. C. Bayless, D. Hoge, J. Jenkinson, W. R. Dickenson, and M. Andrews, are jointly and severally holden, and do stand bound and indebted unto the president, directors and company of the Bank of Steubenville, in the-full sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars, for the payment of which, in sixty days from the date…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Lane
delivered the opinion of the court:
The record presents two questions : 1. Is the surety in a bond 18] discharged by the ^obligee giving time to the principal without the surety’s consent ? 2. Is the surety estopped from setting up this giving of time, as a defense at law, where the relation does not appear on the face of the bond ?
The first question has been already decided by this court in a similar case. 5 Ohio, 207. We have only to repeat the opinion there expressed. A creditor discharges the surety by an agreement that suspends his right to proceed against the principal debtor,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Kelly v. GillespieSupreme Court of Iowa · 1861