Kerr v. . Cowen
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The facts in this case were, that on the 22(1 of January 1822, the plaintiff gave to the defendant Conner, two promissory notes for the sum of g l 1,15 each, payable on the first of January, 1825 and 1826. That in the year 1823, the defendant Cowen, in the State of Georgia, became the surety of Conner, for a debt due in that Slate, and that the latter, on the 12th of January 1824, endorsed to him the notes above mentioned to indemnify, him against his responsibility.
Read the full summary
The facts in this case were, that on the 22(1 of January 1822, the plaintiff gave to the defendant Conner, two promissory notes for the sum of g l 1,15 each, payable on the first of January, 1825 and 1826. That in the year 1823, the defendant Cowen, in the State of Georgia, became the surety of Conner, for a debt due in that Slate, and that the latter, on the 12th of January 1824, endorsed to him the notes above mentioned to indemnify, him against his responsibility. On the 9th of August 1825, Cowen was compelled to pay the debt for which he had thus become Conner's surety, amounting to $1900…
1Opinion of the Court
Easton, Judge.
After stating tiic facts as above, proceeded: — Neither Kerr or Cowen, has a lion upon the second note by virtue of any contract. Cowen by the terms of his contract, was to collect the money upon both notes, indemnify himself for his liability as Conner’s surety, and account to him for tbs surplus. As against Conner, he has however, the right upon principles of natural equity, to retain so much of this surplus as will satisfy his other just demands. Ami Kerr has against Conner, on the same principles,- tiie same right to be -relieved from the payment of so much of the notes us…
2Cited by1 opinion
- United States National Bank of New York v. McNairSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895