Legal Opinion

Wylie v. Hightower

Texas Supreme Court

Decided June 11, 1889No. 6163PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from Holán. Tried below before Hon. Wm. Kennedy. October 9, 1885, Wylie sued Hightower and Mangum on a promissory mote made by them. Mangum pleaded in defense that he had been discharged by the acts of Wylie and Hightower from liability upon the note; that he was surety upon the note, and that upon signing it he had exacted that Hightower should secure the payment by a trust deed upon a flock of sheep, and by a promissory note held by Hightower.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Holán. Tried below before Hon. Wm. Kennedy. October 9, 1885, Wylie sued Hightower and Mangum on a promissory mote made by them. Mangum pleaded in defense that he had been discharged by the acts of Wylie and Hightower from liability upon the note; that he was surety upon the note, and that upon signing it he had exacted that Hightower should secure the payment by a trust deed upon a flock of sheep, and by a promissory note held by Hightower. It was alleged that without the consent of Mangum the time of payment had been extended, and that the security furnished by Hightower had been…

1Opinion of the Court

Hobby, Judge.

It is a familiar principle, which seems to have been borrowed from courts of equity, that a surety will be discharged if a new agreement be entered into, between the creditor and principal debtor varying or enlarging the time of performance of a contract or payment of the debt, and it is immaterial whether the extension of time has operated to the prejudice of the surety or not. 7 Wait’s Act. and Def., p. 57.

It is also a well recognized rule that if the creditor without the knowledge or consent of the surety, expressly or tacitly yielded, gives time to the principal by a valid…

2Cited by14 opinions

  1. Brinker v. First Nat. Bank of ClevelandTexas Commission of Appeals · 1931
  2. J. I. Case Threshing MacHine Co. v. HowthTexas Supreme Court · 1927
  3. John F. Tomlin, Trustee v. The Ceres Corporation, Harry I. Neuman, Defendant-Third-Party Mitchell T. Curtis & Co., Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
  4. Hines Clark & Curtis Herring v. CummingsTexas Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Dickson v. Kilgore State BankTexas Commission of Appeals · 1924

9 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